The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has been a staunch supporter of the ICT for Development (ICT4D) paradigm. Walter Fust, the Director General of SDC shared his thoughts on governance issues and role of ICTs in development interventions in an exclusive interview with Manish Kumar of OneWorld South Asia. Read the excerpts of the interview here. The complete interview can be read in the Pro-Poor Governance issue of Mainstreaming ICTs, a bi-monthly print magazine of OneWorld South Asia focusing on MDGs
What does governance mean for SDC?
Governance is a misused and negatively connotated word. Governance is an area of concern for every part of the society. Be it a government, national or local government or be it the NGOs. NGOs believe that they are automatically well governed. This is not true. It is the same for private companies and the universities.
Governance means to accomplish ones tasks in the best possible manner, so that the services or the outcomes correspond to the expectations of those who are being served.
How can ICTs enable pro-poor governance?
I am absolutely sure that the ICTs are great tools. They can be tools for accountability, tools for transparency, to relay information, and to transform information into knowledge. I do follow the international discourse on ICTs. I see that many governments are concerned about the potential misuse of ICTs. Thats a very important concern. But we have to try to reduce the risk by better using the potential advantages of ICTs. However, we will never be in a postioin to completely reduce their misuse. Using ICTs is like using a knife, we can not sustain in our daily life without using it in routine household work.But if misused, the knife can prove to be quite harmful.
What are the other constraints to pro-poor governance besides the misuse of ICTs?
It is also the connectivity, cost of connectivity, access, lack of adequate tecnnology for access as well as language and cost barriers. I think very often the question is put wrongly with regard to poor people. I always hear people saying that they first need nutrition. Human beings need two things to survive in this world, food and education. ICTs can provide for both these needs.
How is governance linked to MDGs?
MDGs are important and it is vital for us to address them. For any nation whether industrialised, developing or in transition, it is crucial to reduce poverty by half. For this to happen you need good national frameworks, a commitment by the politicians and parlimament and you need an informed population. ICTs are tools that can encourage the implementation of the MDGs.
Are you saying that countries lack proper framework for mainstreaming ICTs in development policies?
That is partly correct but in many countries where you have Poverty Reduction Strategies, ICTs have been ranked quite high. When it comes to creating policy, I would say, half of the countries have such policies. But to have a policy is one thing and to implement is another. Scaling up an initiative is an entirely different matter. I have seen many countries with wonderful e-policies on paper but these have not converted into actual implementation at the local level.
What is the significance of Mission 2007- Every Village a Knowledge Centre initiative in India? What is there in it for other developing countries?
I think it is time to overcome the forever pilot approach with regards to the ICTs. This is a wonderful example of how to upscale ICT initiatives to a national level, to a national mission, to a national concern, to a national policy and to bring all the stakeholders around one table so that each one can add value and complement each other in reaching the over all aim. It is important to see how this process is working with all its benefits and also shortcomings. I think that will be of utmost importance and relevance to other countries because in a large number of countries, we face similar roadblocks. I am very confident that India will lead to a positive change in this direction. I consider Mission 2007 as one of the biggest initiatives, in recent times, in social development and in particular ICT for development.
What lessons can the South Asian countries draw from SDCs experiences in Africa and Latin America?
We can only be a catalyst, a convenor for bringing people together for exchanging knowledge. That is the reason why SDC supports the Global Knowledge Partnership. Because GKP is about building partnerships and sharing knowledge. Creating spaces for knowlede sharing is an important concern for us. We are sure that there are so many things to look into. But also a lot of local content is available in any country and to make it accessible to others is also important.
I think in South-East Asia there is still a different concern about getting licencses for local and community radio. Our experiences in Africa and Latin America prove that local radio is an extremly powerful tool to inform people about disasters and other relevant concerns. But in many countries, the people or the government especially politicians think that local radio can become too powerful or can be misused by the opposition parties. Information is power for people who have to vote. But in the long run it is benefitting all.
Do you see a role for SDC in national e-governance strategies of South Asia?
It depends on the respective governments whether they want to share knowledge or want to commonly develop certan tools. We are open for that. We are a small country with limited possibilities but our work is need based. So it depends on our partners what they really want to go for. But, we cannot simply bring solutions on our own.
Does governance in the information society mean only Internet Governance?
No, it is much more than that. I am unhappy about the fact that the World Information Society Summit (WSIS) is merely limited to internet governance and financial matters.An Information Society has a lot to do with the society, the future of the society and the development of the society and it is a concern for all of us. All nations should take advantage of this summit to discuss the future society they are looking for and not just leave it for the G-8 to pre-cook things or wait for other international agencies to come forward. I think it has to become a bottom up process.
The larger societal issues seemed to be ignored in the second phase of WSIS in Tunis. What do you think?
You are very right. It is unfortunate that this is happening. What is the value of information in a future society, how to convert information into knowledge, all these societal issues have to be discussed and ofcourse their political dimensions have to be fully explored.
|
