Mr. Wijayananda Jayaweera, Director, Division of Communication Development, Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO, Paris

What were the reasons and circumstances that inspired UNESCO to initiate the CMCs globally?

Let us say that the CMC is a model developed by UNESCO over a period of time, since the beginning of 1997, when we initiated the first project in Sri Lanka called Kothmale Community Radio Internet project. Why was this model developed? From the beginning, on the one hand, we have had the possibility of using new information and communication technologies (NICT) for development, on the other, we have had to overcome barriers when using these ICTs for development. These barriers concern a lack of awareness concerning the benefits of NICTS, the high cost and lack of access to computers and connectivity, as well as the language barriers that prevent the use of Internet based information.

There is also the issue of content. While the content creation of the traditional media such as radio, television and press, incorporated the known and familiar forms of content, in the new media content, creation requires special skills which have to be acquired.

Under these circumstances, we thought that a combination of different technologies, from both traditional and new (technologies), in the form of CMC could be a solution to overcome some of these problems. Therefore in the CMCs we use radio, the most penetrating medium as the interface, between people and internet. The pilot sites implemented in 15 courtiers have proved that our assumptions were correct.

What are the advantages of CMCs over other models like telecentres?

Firstly, CMCs are based on a simple methodology. The idea is to use community broadcasters as intermediaries between people and internet. They can interpret the information in the local language and people can have indirect access to cyberspace, through the radio, by directing their queries to the trained broadcasters, who not only obtain relevant information but also contextualise it thereby creating new knowledge. This process is very important because information itself cannot create knowledge unless it is discussed and moulded to the local context. Community radio is an efficient tool for this contextualisation process.

Secondly, costs are reduced considerably by having community access rather than individual access. In addition this access enables community radio stations to create a social space for interaction within and between communities.

Thirdly, by combining these facilities, it becomes possible to ensure sustainability as radio is a sustainable operation. You just add new ICTs. You have then simply provided an added value and have made it all the more sustainable. the connectivity cost is still a factor. But the investment has immediate returns because internet information enriches the broadcast programme content and radio has the possibility to provide information otherwise inaccessible without internet embedded information.

In this model community members become more aware of what one can do with internet.

Moreover, the radio station also functions as a public access point for internet. As in any telecenter, people can come and access information with the guidance of trained volunteers on a cost recovery basis. There are some CMCs which maintain e-mail accounts for community members and inform the recipient over the radio, to come and collect the e-mail from the station.

This differs from the telecentre approach. With telecenters you need to establish everything from the very beginning and one is not sure of the sustainability in rural areas, when depending solely on the access fee. In a way, the combination of radio and the internet subsidises the access cost because interfacing the internet provides opportunities for the radio to increase its income. Telecenters or internet cafés provide very little or no opportunities for communities to discuss internet derived content in local language. It is of course a business model that can be used by small entrepreneurs, mostly located in urban areas where people often use them to send e-mails. Internet cafés are less used by rural people for internet access, unless access costs are underwritten through some project fund. This is why most pilot telecenter projects continue to require disproportionate funds to sustain their operations.

How are UNESCO perspectives reflected in the projects?

The most important thing is that you should look at the whole issue of CMCs, not from the viewpoint of technology dissemination, but rather as a means of using technologies and a media mix to expand the existing social networks and creating new networks. CMCs are hubs for social networks. The participation in CMCs builds the necessary confidence and skills to deal with new situations and opportunities. This is the perspective that is generally reflected in the Community Multimedia Centres. It is a social space where people can gather.

Can you outline some of the limitations of CMCs?

Most of the tools are available for familiar information processing (for example the web browsers), they are useful but they have limitations. Unless, you know where to go, you have to spend a lot of time searching for information. In the pilot phase of the CMC, UNESCO together with the Indian national informatics centre developed a tool, which not only helps to manage and package the information, but also provides a one stop tool known as eNRICH for social networking, where people can participate in community voting, the production of content and communicating within and between the different communities. What ever limitations we now have are not necessarily related to technologies. They are related more to the traditional vertical orientation of the development and governmental agencies working at the grassroots level. They could partner with the CMCs to make their services more efficient, if they are wiling to establish horizontal linkages with the communities through the space and networks provided by CMC.

What are your views on present scale-up CMC projects?

To simplify the concept of scale up, let me illustrate an example. If you have 50-60 CMCs in a small country or a province, we could create a large social network capable of mainstreaming ICTs for various developmental issues such as education, health, telemedicine, and administrative transparency. The availability of a critical mass of CMCs encourages governmental and development agencies to use them for development. However, there has been a great deal of talk about using ICTs for distance education or telemedicine, it is not likely that any policy will be implemented to that effect without the adequate number of access points in the rural areas.

To give a concrete example, if we want to encourage a country to develop a programme for teachers’ training, based on ICTS, we may develop a programme but how are we going to deliver the programme unless we have a sufficient network of delivery points ?

Therefore, the scale-up is important. Scale-up has to be based/implemented on the national level. One important aim is to provide an opportunity for the main agencies at the national level dealing with education, health, agriculture, marketing etc to use the scale up as a spring board to provide their services more efficiently to the communities, while the overreaching aim is to widen the social network for knowledge creation and sharing.

Therefore, the potentials are very much there. We have just started CMC scale ups in three African countries.

In order to prepare for the scale up, several studies and research were carried out, on how ICTs can be utilised for poverty reduction. The most recent two year study conducted in South Asia confirmed that strong links between social and technological networks emerge as being highly important for community based ICT initiatives which aim to improve the conditions of the poor and the marginalised. The findings also show that local content creation at the CMCs is an important means of engaging people with ICTs, enabling them to have a voice, and to harness and circulate locally relevant knowledge.

ICTs lend themselves to group work and projects, so that developing social and technical skills are interrelated in the CMCs. There is a capacity in ICT interventions both to enlist and expand existing networks, and to bring diverse and excluded people to overcome gender, caste and other such boundaries. This can expand the flow of information and communication as well the individual’s confidence and capacity to benefit from wider social networks.

For sustainability, both technological and social, issues need to be addressed as a priority, and we are confident that with partnerships both at the national and community levels, we will be able to ensure the operational sustainability of the scale up. Amongst young people, there is huge potential to build on their involvement and enthusiasm for participation in ICTs initiatives, which is often strongly supported by their families and communities. Technical support and backup and local capacity are crucial issues, especially when there are limited resources. We have envisaged to develop supporting resource centers at provincial/national levels.

Many development partners have gone through the piloting phase of the individual ICT initiatives and have learnt a great deal. It is high time to work seriously on national level scale up of successful projects. We should overcome the everlasting pilot syndrome, and donor branding of pilot projects. Let us mobilize our resources for scale up and its national ownership. It may be a necessary risk we should all take in order to make real widespread impact of ICTs for Development. It is our moral obligation to bring the benefits of ICTs to those who are marginalized.

UNESCO is working with the Governments of Mali, Mozambique and Senegal to build a multi stake holder partnership with other development agencies, community and civil society organisations, the private sector and donors to implant a successful scale up.