Samia Melhem at the World Bank's Global ICT Department writes about how investing in telecommunication can help make reconstruction in post-conflict countries more efficient and the importance of creating the right policy and regulatory framwork.
In a recent ediscussion moderated by the World Bank Group’s private sector vice presidency, comments were gathered from all around the word on the following questions: What is the government’s role in facilitating entry by investors in post-conflict countries? What sector reforms and regulations should be implemented to attract the desired private investments? What is the proper sequence in which different information and communication technologies should be implemented by governments emerging from conflict? Does the role of information and communication technologies in post-conflict countries differ from its role in low-income countries in general? How can universities and schools be used to increase access to technologies and increase local capacities for using and producing services that will help recovery and national reconciliation?
The following text, authored by the ediscussion moderator, summarizes the highlights of the debate, and several of its conclusions, related to the issue of egovernment and post conflict programs and policies:
Most participants in the electronic discussion were of the opinion that in a country shattered by war, with a divided population and destroyed set of institutions, rebuilding the society's basic building blocks was impossible without a concerted governmental effort to create the means for people to communicate among themselves, and with the government, in ways that were never done before. Hence the importance of creation of egovernment applications, mostly news, agency portals, and online basic transactions (registrations of birth, death, assets, vehicles and land).
Recovering from a civil war cannot be achieved without increased attention to rural/urban and national or international communications, and making these affordable and easily available. Destruction of transport infrastructure and lack of prevalent safety makes it imperative for citizens to access information or news in lieu of physical transport. In many cases, ICT can prevent life losses in road accidents, militia fights, kidnappings, village guerillas, terror checkpoints, and the like. eDiscussants reinforced the positive psychological impact of having access to communications, which cannot be understated for a population recovering from a civil war. It empowers the citizens, allowing them to gain control over an essential basic right: that to communicate with others, hear what is happening, and be able to have a voice, at all levels of society. ICT can help empower those who were silenced and isolated for years during a conflict situation. Hence the necessity to rebuild the information infrastructure in an efficient and economic approach, coordinating heavily with other infrastructure rehabilitation such as water, roads and power, digging simultaneously for all sectors as opposed to a piecemeal, and hence costlier, approach to reconstruction.
All writers discussed the imperative to have a functioning media system, a disaster recovery hotline, a citizen-help hotline, and the related back-end infrastructure (accountable police force and justice system, due process for conflict resolution, etc.). Examples from Somalia, Bosnia, Eastern Timor, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Afghanistan, and other post-conflict countries were discussed at length.
Practitioners and policymakers all stressed the importance of governance to have a communication system in place that will not replicate the social inequalities that may have brought the conflict in the first place. Almost all mentioned the importance of creating competition, and a market-friendly environment to attract operators beyond the heavily populated, high income urban areas. Reverse subsidies to insure universal access are popular strategy to promote access beyond the market as is the case for Chile, Peru, Nepal, etc.
The issue of decentralization in post-conflict situations was raised. The burden of reconstruction of an often centralized set of government institutions, coupled with that of decentralization, is often a twin challenge too hard to tackle at once for any post-conflict government. There is a general agreement that providing access to basic infrastructure to help accelerate decentralization process is a must. Decentralization of government has to be tied to a coherent plan to extend access so municipalities and local governments can communicate on a daily basis with the federal agencies. This of course raises the financing issue. Who will pay for the infrastructure? Most of post conflict governments inherit large budget deficits from previous administrations.
Indeed, who should or can finance access? History has shown that often times a post-conflict country with destroyed infrastructure can be very attractive to telecommunications operators. (Algeria, Mozambique, Nigeria). There will be an inevitable neglect of the isolated rural areas, where reaching a scattered population may be too costly for operators, despite the possible pent-up demand. Some discussants recommended public investments in infrastructure, or public subsidies for operators willing to "go out there". The question of public/private partnerships (PPP) is often raised and some see PPP as the only viable model to finance access. Others suggested that development banks urgently consider such financing. The issue of shared access was raised, and the benefits of shared facilities for operators, as a cost reduction incentive to roll out a network. Today with the dropping prices of telecommunication equipment and with the right regulatory framework, operators can easily share towers, co-locate their switching stations, and negotiate rights-of-way for their base stations and cables. However the policy and regulatory framework has to be such that such sharing is allowed, even promoted especially for the incumbent. This means that Telecommunications and Competition laws have to allow such sharing.
Many of the writers questioned the operators mode of entry in a post conflict country, and the resulting dilemma for a government: Does a government try to get as high as possible a license fee from an operator or does the government lower, even cancel license fee requirements, while demanding maximum population coverage by including rollout obligations in its territory? In post-conflict countries the latter may be a better strategy to extend access in the least amount of time.
The issue of governance, transparency, regulatory process and dispute resolution among operators was often raised. Evidence documents the difficulty of having a transparent governance framework immediately after conflict, and a market where the maximum competition is introduced while requiring the minimum amount of regulation. This may be an impossible goal to attain in a post-conflict situation, where lack of transparency and corruption (which are no strangers to some of the deep roots of civil conflict) makes it impossible at times for operators to enter the new market without large amounts of bribery to government officials in order to get their business started. The consensus here was speed: The sooner an independent, competent regulator is established and a competitive telecommunications market established, the better the outcome in terms of FDI (in the form of new operators in the market), rollout, increase of employment in the sector, and citizen access.
The question of shared access for the citizen is often raised. Models such as telecenters for Internet access, and that of Grameen's village phone are inevitably brought up. The nexus of operators' "good will", availability of microfinance and availability of basic training makes the Grameen village phone very attractive to post conflict rural areas. The model was tested for years in Bangladesh, and is now being replicated in Nigeria and Rwanda. One of its positive side effects is raising the social status of rural women, and slowly changing the mindset about women-operated businesses, a side effect which will no doubt be of benefit to all women in post-conflict countries, their families, and their future generations.
Regarding shared infrastructure, and finding a way to ensure there is a framework to invest in and to share the critical infrastructure needed to make decentralization successful, discussants commented that new technologies were helping towards that goal. Today, converged networks have become a reality and the current trend is towards increasing competition at the service and application layer, rather than at the transport and infrastructure layer themselves, which could be leased to service operators at prices matching the country’s consumer indices. Most discussants pinpointed to the critical role the World Bank could play in these contexts in setting up the right policy and regulatory framework. The World Bank would have to do a tremendous amount of work to resolve issues of fair access and ways to prevent the monopoly from becoming another bloated bureaucracy, but at least it remains a tantalizing possibility. In this instance, as some examples suggested, instead of having a bid for license fees, the bidders might bid for amounts of cash to be spent on building the infrastructure. The more they bid, the more of the capacity they are allowed to utilize. A special-purpose vehicle could be formed to manage such a program, with its board made of individual operators investing in the shared infrastructure. The revenue model will be based on revenue sharing, and a certain percentage of revenues could be allocated for universal funds and for support of regulator agency and services.
The question of ICT-based applications (financial management, taxes, customs, pension, health and education administration services) was raised but not discussed at length. Consensus was, however, that a decentralization effort without accompanying adequate management information systems will not deliver the promise of faster and transparent citizen/state relation. Very little research and projects have been done in that area and this is a topic the WBG and other donors ought to be seriously contemplating.
The issues of aid effectiveness and the multiplicity of small ICT initiatives were raised. Some of the discussants thought too many small initiatives should be replaced by a concerted 'blueprint" for government, a master plan where ICT is judiciously injected to achieve more effective sector and decentralization reform, with one government official (CIO) in charge of a competent professional change management team is in charge of coordination and implementation across all sectors.
Several questions remain unanswered, as we tackled the difficult issues of post-conflict reconstruction and decentralization - two themes going way beyond infrastructure, and requiring intensive change management at all levels - and hence incredible, unified, political will. Can ICT help? Certainly. Will it make an impact? No doubt. Can it help in decentralization efforts? Yes, if access and training of local governments is possible, and if government services are made available online and rolled out to municipalities.
Will ICT help heal the wounds, promote good behavior, transparency, and prevent future social unrest? Probably not. So much more has to be done at all levels of government, civil society, NGOs, and private sector, and so much good will, governance and promotion of good values by example has to be provided by reformed policy makers. But it will sure help all of those working on post-conflict reconstruction become more efficient. Their programs will have faster impact and deeper outreach, if aid workers in isolated areas had access to phones, e-mail, and media communications.
Autor/Author: Samia Melhem
Quelle/Source: eGov monitor, 09.05.2006
