The group of organizers of the Web2ForDev Conference which took place last September 2007, held a review meeting on November 20th. The event was evaluated, also based on the input from those who filled in the end-of-conference survey, and considered follow-up actions. In general all organizations present expressed a commitment, also fed by the survey respondents, to keep the movement going. However, as we learned at the conference, the nature of web 2.0 is participatory. The goals and intentions of the organizers can only be realized with participation from the movement owners: all those interested in learning and sharing together about Web2ForDev.

So do not hesitate to get involved in the online collaborative platforms already available and keep the movement going. If you are specifically interested to proactively participate in any of the areas defined below, please contact web2fordev@web2fordev.net .

Primary follow-up areas defined by the organizers:

1. Training in various forms was requested by many in the end-of-conference survey. In response, the organizers are exploring options to merge their strengths and work together to provide a combined effort in this regard in 2008.
2. The online community, represented primarily by the Web2ForDev DGroup members, but also those tagging in Delicious with the Web2ForDev tag, and posting to the Web2ForDev blog, is also a resource and movement which the organizers want to continue supporting. In combination with the Web2ForDev wiki, the community has at its fingertips a strong combination of web 2.0 tools which can facilitate learning and sharing in a collaborative manner.
3. Continued awareness raising is also on the agenda and is considered one of the efforts to keep the movement going. The organizers will explore their networks together and undertake actions to feed awareness raising around Web2ForDev.
4. Case studies, including some demonstrated at the Web2forDev conference, are being examined and compiled by the various organizations. The nature of this pioneering field is that continued research is necessary to indicate which web 2.0 tools and approaches are best suited within a development context. The organizers are committed to compile this information and provide it to the development community.

In short, the Web2ForDev movement can count on continued support from a multi stakeholder collaboration. We are looking forward to engaging with all interested parties and individuals who, like us, believe Web 2.0 approaches and tools can make a positive difference within the development context.

Signed:

the Web2forDev Partnership

(CTA, FAO, IICD, GTZ, CGIAR, ACP, UBC, APC, Euforic, UCAD and IFAD)

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.

“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 - 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.’

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

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….