It’s going to rain in Dakar on Tuesday 20 May 2070. How do I know? Michael Saunby told me, at his presentation of Climate Change Mashups this afternoon in the Lebanon Room. But why do we need to know today whether or not it’s going to rain in Dakar on 20 May 2070? “It might not,” confesses Michael, “it’s not a prediction, it’s more like an average of the weather at that time, as far as the computer models can tell.”

Michael works at the Met Office Hadley Centre in the UK. Massively powerful computers there are used to work out how the Earth’s climate might change over the next decades and into the 22nd century. His example of the weather over West Africa on 20 May 2070 illustrates the kind of data being produced. When examined over longer periods this kind of information could indicate particularly high rainfall for the region - invaluable knowledge for people living in coastal regions or along rivers that could flood. Similarly, knowing in advance that sustained periods of drought were likely is crucial to farmers when planning which crops to plant, when to harvest or when developing future irrigation schemes.

But how could a farmer in rural Senegal access information produced by a super computer in the UK? Mashup, is Michael’s answer. Combining Met Office weather data with Google maps, for example, could indicate the likely impact of the changing climate for a specific area and help farmers plan how they can best use the land in the years to come.

This means those most affected could work together with their wider community and even government when decisions are made, taking action early rather than waiting until disaster hits. And disaster will hit. Most experts agree that some aspects of climate change are inevitable – seal levels will rise, the planet will get warmer – and so, while measures can still be taken to prevent or limit damage it is important that the most vulnerable people have the information to contribute to future decision making. Not only that, but web 2.0 now also makes it possible for people to add local information to the data provided by the Met Office and help Michael and his colleagues to make ever more accurate models for future changes to our climate.

Michael’s obvious enthusiasm for the subject made for a lively presentation that not only looked impressive but was incredibly informative too. Just remember, make sure you pack an umbrella if you’re visiting Dakar in May 2070.

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.    

Le Système d’Information Scientifique et Technique (SIST) est un dispositif de collection d’information en réseau. Il participe à l’amélioration de l’accessibilité sur le Net des travaux de recherche menés dans 12 pays d’Afrique (Algérie, Bénin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroun, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali, Maroc, Nigeria, Sénégal, Tunisie).

Le SIST a pour mission, selon Joël Sor du Cirad en France, d’orienter les acteurs de la recherche dans le dédale des sources dédiées à l’information scientifique. Les contenus produits au sein du SIST sont donc limités et prennent la forme de dossiers documentaires qui fournissent des orientations sur des thèmes scientifiques et techniques.

Des bases de données scientifiques ou documentaires sont créées pour les besoins d’un réseau d’experts et d’équipes de recherche, des forums de discussions et des listes de diffusion pour animer un projet ou un réseau, des wiki que tout usager peut créer et modifier à volonté. «Les gens attendent une certaine fluidité par rapport à l’information. Le SIST ne stocke pas de données. Il est dans une logique de moteur de recherche, de travail collaboratif pour les équipes de recherches» affirme Joël Sor. 

Le SIST effectue ses recherches à travers 140 sources d’informations scientifiques de diverses origines. Les informations scientifiques proviennent d’organisations internationales mais aussi d’établissements de recherche et d’enseignement supérieur ou de producteurs d’informations scientifiques du secteur privé. Les sites Web indexés par le SIST sont des sites institutionnels ou des sites scientifiques de groupes d’organismes. Les sites Web personnels ou les blogs sont exclus des sources et outils d’informations proposés. Quant aux sites commerciaux (.com), ils font l’objet d’un travail préalable de recommandations ou de dossiers documentaires.

«Face à cette évolution des technologies de l’information et du foisonnement de l’information, où trouver l’information pertinente ? » Sur le SIST, semble dire Joël Sor car le système offre un méta-moteur de recherche pour interroger en même temps plusieurs bases de données et sources.

Ces contenus visent prioritairement les scientifiques des 12 membres du projet. Ils complètent les SIST nationaux par des sources d’origine internationale, régionale ou transversale. Les sources d’informations sont en français et en anglais pour tenir compte des langues utilisées dans les 12 pays.

Les domaines d’intervention du SIST sont la gestion des ressources en eau, des maladies émergentes, la biotechnologie végétale et la biosécurité, les technologies de l’information et de la communication, la valorisation des patrimoines culturels, et l’agronomie.

Le SIST est un projet de coopération du ministère français des Affaires étrangères. Il vise à désenclaver la recherche africaine, à promouvoir une dynamique de l’expertise et à mettre la science africaine au service du développement durable. Le projet a été lancé en 2003 et a officiellement démarré en janvier 2004.

Par Ramata Soré

Report back - Anti Social-Computing: Indigenous language, Intellectual Property Rights and Digital Video 

A presentation by Tim Kulchyski and Jon Corbett 

This was a fascinating presentation about a project initiated by the Hul’q’umi’num’ Treaty group in Canada. Like Kado Muir’s accounts of the Ngalia people in Australia, this is another inspiring example of how First Nations communities are revitalising their culture and language using Web 2.0.The Hul’q’umi’num Elders approached the University of Victory in Canada and asked them to collaborate with them on a project. The Elders had identified language as a key element in strengthening their culture and cultural identity.They wanted to use participatory video within their community to record songs, stories, and skills. In Tim and Jon’s presentation, we saw many photos of Hul’q’umi’num community members engaged in ‘everyday’ activities, such as storytelling and weaving cedar bark. But as Tim explains: ‘It was about bringing it back into people’s everyday lives – they’re things that we’re losing, these activities are becoming extinct.’The key thing though, was the carefully developed process involved. All material generated within the community was overseen by Elders Advisory Boards – and in particular, to protect and preserve sensitive cultural information.Essentially, many Web 2.0 processes are often referred to as ’social computing’, about sharing information with the rest of the world. But here, the information generated is closely protected within the community. So it is, in fact anti ’social-computing.

Why? ‘There is a need for caution,’ co-presenter Jon Corbett observes. ‘Caution about what information goes online, and who has access. There has been really significant knowledge expropriation for generations – so what remains, the communities must have control of.’ 

Corbett continues: ‘Imagine a pyramid. Data is at the bottom, information next, then knowledge – and only wisdom is at the top. Social computing is a good way of sharing information, but less so knowledge, and certainly not wisdom.’

Essentially, what this means is that the learning and growth of community wisdom that is perhaps the most significant indicator of success.

‘It’s not the final product that’s important, it’s the process,’ Tim Kulchyski says in conclusion. ‘Like a dictionary, it’s never really done. If we’ve learnt something from it, to me that means the project has been a success.’       

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.’

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…

English

Agriculture & Nouvelles Technologies : En quoi le web 2.0 peut-il devenir un facteur de développement ?
Giacomo Rambaldi : Internet donne la possibilité à des personnes qui ont accès au Net, même isolées géographiquement, d’obtenir une grande audience, d’être en contact avec des marchés lointains etc. Si on dispose de la connexion, de l’énergie et du temps à dédier à cette activité, on peut s’en servir comme « catalyseur de changement », avec très peu de ressources. Quand on parle du Sud, on évoque des intermédiaires technologiques. Il y a des ONG, des structures ayant accès à Internet et qui peuvent faire l’interface entre, par exemple, des producteurs, des organisations paysannes ou des groupements de femmes et le grand public qui est sur Internet. A l’heure actuelle, nous sommes dans une phase intermédiaire, mais dans une dizaine d’années ou moins, quand l’accès au Net sera meilleur dans pays du Sud, des habitants pourront avoir leur propre espace. Quelques-uns œuvrent d’ailleurs déjà sans intermédiaire.

A. & N. T. : En quoi va consister votre conférence baptisée Web2fordev ?
G. R. : Nous travaillons depuis un an et demi sur la mise en place de cet événement. Chaque année, nous organisions un observatoire TIC centré sur l’agriculture et le développement rural. Des spécialistes viennent pour discuter des innovations récentes. L’an passé, dans le cadre de notre nouvelle stratégie 2007-2010, nous avons décidé d’investir beaucoup plus dans cet événement et de le transformer en une conférence d’ampleur internationale. Après avoir échangé sur le sujet avec des partenaires dans les secteur du développement, nous avons commencé à organiser cet événement. L’objectif était de réaliser une conférence dont les grandes lignes n’étaient pas élaborées par nos soins : nous avons demandé leurs priorités aux différents publics concernés. 500 opérateurs dans le secteur du développement ont répondu à une enquête en ligne et les grandes thématiques ont été définies : l’espace virtuel partagé, les technologies appropriées pour la publication en ligne, la recherche et l’accès aux informations en ligne.

A. & N. T. : Existe-t-il aujourd’hui des freins au développement espéré ?
G. R. : Bien sûr et le premier d’entre eux est l’accès au Net. C’est une limitation importante. Mais les choses évoluent.
Quand j’étais au Kenya il y a quinze ans, il était très difficile d’obtenir une ligne de téléphone fixe. Maintenant, il y a un marché de la téléphonie mobile qui est bouillonnant et qui se développe plus vite qu’en Europe. L’accès au Web avance
relativement vite dans les pays africains. Il y a également d’autres freins comme les monopoles dans la téléphonie… Mais petit à petit, les choses vont dans le bon sens.

English

(English)

Dans le Sud Ouest du Burkina Faso, les paysans utilisent Internet pour vérifier le prix des céréales sur le marché national afin de ne pas se faire arnaquer par certains acheteurs. Ainsi le contenu de la parole, auparavant, vérité est mis en doute…

La ville de Boura compte de 26 347 habitants et est située à une cinquantaine de kilomètre de Léo, le chef-lieu de province. Ce chef-lieu est à 165 km de la capitale politique, Ouagadougou. La création de ces cybercentres répond à un besoin. « Faire face au déficit d’information et de communication » comme l’affirme Joseph Dagano. Le paysan, avec le Net, arrive donc à contacter ses collègues des autres villes du Burkina Faso et à avoir l’information vraie sur les prix des céréales et les intrants. «Certains commerçants véreux des grandes villes venaient tromper les paysans sur les prix des produits et des intrants agricoles. Aujourd’hui, on ne peut plus venir tromper un paysan, depuis que le cyber existe à Boura » assure le président de la Société coopérative de production céréalière (SOCOPROC) et de la FEPPASI Joseph Dagano.

Bien avant les TIC, les paysans faisaient foi aux propos des commerçants venant acheter leurs productions. S’étant rendu compte que les acheteurs les grugeaient sur les prix des vivres et autres céréales, les paysans ont décidé de se connecter à Internet pour avoir les bonnes informations. Ils refusent de se faire arnaquer.

Ainsi donc, avec Internet et la téléphonie mobile, ils sont mieux informés. Partant de ce fait, les NTIC ont déclenchés un nouveau comportement dans cet espace social auparavant basé sur l’oralité.

L’information véhiculée par les NTIC est donc chargée de connaissances nouvelles, d’informations vraies. La parole d’autrui perd plus ou moins sa valeur intrinsèque. Les NTIC permettent de la revérifier, de la recouper. Ces technologies amorcent donc la construction de nouvelles identités et désagrègent les anciennes. L’adhésion des paysans aux nouvelles formes de communication, via les NTIC, s’est opérée que parce qu’il y a menace immédiate sur leur devenir, leur épanouissement, leur gagne-pain. Somme toute, les paroles de son semblable. «Dans les villages, le recours aux NTIC n’est pas le résultat de choix préalablement raisonnés, mais celui de violences imposées, bon gré mal gré», déclare le sociologue burkinabè André Nyamba.

Ramata Soré

(English)