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.    

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?

I really like the dropping knowledge initiative and think that through questions a lot can be expressed. The basic idea behind Dropping knowledge is that only by posing the right questions can a global conversation be started which can change the world to the better.

That’s why I want to start here with some questions, which can be discussed during the conference:

1. What are the key challenges to be tackled for web2.0 for rural development?
2. Is free and open source software the main driver for web2.0 technology?
3. Does web2.0 is all about connecting people or does it really involve knowledge sharing?
4. Is connectivity one of the main issues around web2fordev or only a shortterm challenge?
5. How can developing countries realize their own web2.0 applications?
6. Does the increase of social networks enhance potential for learning?
7. …

What are your answers? Do you have more questions?

Thanks in advance!

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