The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> RISPER AROSE: Can you hear me? Yes, you can hear me.
To confirm online, our speakers online. Can you hear me? Confirm.
>> Yes, I can hear you.
>> Yes, I can hear you. Great.
>> All right. So I'll go ahead and start the session.
Good morning. Good afternoon everyone. It's my absolute pleasure to welcome you all to this important session.
My name is Risper Arose. I serve as the Africa general capacity‑building coordinator for the Local Action Network LOCNET Initiative, which is collective effort led by the Association for Progressive Communications, APC, and Rhizomatica in partnership with grassroots communities and support organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Carribean.
We aim to directly support meaningful community center connectivity initiatives, while contributing to and enabling system for the emergence and their growth.
It has been an enriching and insightful week speaking here at the Internet Governance Forum 2024 here in Riyadh. Today, I have the privilege of moderating our discussion on a topic that lies at the heart of the digital inclusion. Topic is innovative financing mechanisms to bridging the digital divide.
In this digital age, ensuring universal access to telecommunication infrastructure remains a significant challenge particularly in developing countries. Despite significant public and private investments, traditional approaches to telecommunication infrastructure, while impactful in certain respects, have failed to achieve universal access goal even for basic voice connectivity for over two decades.
However, as the saying goes, necessity is the mother of all invention and across the globe, community‑centered connectivity solutions have emerged as a powerful alternative.
These solutions are rewriting the narrative driven by distinct investment priorities. These providers not only connect and subcommunities, but also foster social, economic, development that represent a vital part of micro, small and medium and enterprises MSEs ecosystem, which is the backbone of the developing countries that has been largely overlooked by traditional large‑scale network operators.
They remind us that connectivity is more than a utility. It is a foundation for empowerment and progress.
With all we state, the still face funding constraints and regulatory challenges that hinder they sustainability and scalability and impact efforts to engage traditional commercial finance institutions that fund communication infrastructure, have suffered three intrinsic difficulties that needs to be addressed: Their limited skill, they are highly real and perceived level of risk and lower returns on investment.
To address these constraints, there is a strong need to create an enabling a flexible policy regulatory and financing environment that encourages the emergence of more innovative regional and local investment models community‑centered connectivity providers which, by extension, allows them to expand and operate cost effectively, and in this respect, to improve the balance between profit maximization and also reaching universal access.
The time has come to fully review where investments are made and how effective they are at addressing digital inclusion.
That is just a brief of our position today. We'll explore the interplay of policy regulation and financing fostering innovative connectivity solutions that bridge the digital divide.
Our discussion will showcase new and innovative financing mechanisms investing in small scale infrastructures that already supporting emerging and successfully supporting community‑centered solutions.
I am thrilled to have a distinguished panel of experts and petitioners with us today. Without further ado, I will give them each less than a minute to introduce themselves. I'll start with those joining us online. I'll give the floor to Dr. Emma Otieno.
>> DR. EMMA OTIENO: Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me.
>> RISPER AROSE: Yes, we can hear you.
>> DR. EMMA OTIENO: Thank you for the opportunity. In the event that I'm not able to keep up with the voice and video sometimes in switching off, I'm glad to join this very important session.
My name is Dr. Emma Otieno. Currently based in Kenya. I'm on this call representing an organization, a nonprofit organization known as Women International Digital Inclusivity Network. It has an obligation written in French.
So back in Kenya, I also work for the regulator. That is the communication authority of Kenya. My background mostly at the moment, I'm specializing on matters specializing on matter of digital inclusivity, and specifically I'm passionate about digital gender inclusivity. I'm happy to be in this call. Thank you very much.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Dr. Emma. Happy to have you as part of panelists.
Next on, I'll go to Dr. Carlos Rey‑Moreno. Carlos?
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: Hi everyone in the room and also online. My name is Carlos Rey‑Moreno. I am managing the local initiative that Risper mentioned at the beginning focusing on policy and regulatory creating an enabling environment for community‑centered connectivity especially policy regulations, but lately, I've been going quite some work around financial mechanisms as part of that. It will be pleasure to be in the session sharing that with you. I'm joining from Spain. It would have been amazing to be there with you, but it was impossible this time around. Thank you again.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Carlos. Next, one is Jane Coffin.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Good morning, good evening, good afternoon. My name is Jane, I'm joining you from the United States. And I'm speaking in my personal capacity, not professional where I work, and based on my experience with over the last 28 years. Most recently, my experience working with around the world, international financial institutions, international organizations, focused on connectivity, and the importance of how we can take a look at financing smaller community‑based networks or small ISPs. A pleasure to join you today. And again, I'm speaking in my personal capacity. None of the information that I'll be speaking about today is nonpublic. It's all public information and based on my experience. And thank you very much.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you for clarifying. Thank you so much.
Now on, I don't know if online moderator is in the room. Harira?
In that case, online participants, feel free to introduce yourselves and where you are joining from in the chat.
Now, I will come back to on‑site speakers, the lovely speakers that we have. I'll give this chance to tell us, to introduce yourself.
>> TALANT: Thank you so much. My name is Talant. I'm wearing two hats here. One is the cofounder of Internet Society Kyrgyzstan Chapter, which we launched several community networks in Kyrgyzstan, and also, I am representing Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, which is a member of a consortium with Care International and GSMA and implementing a project called Women in Digital Economy Fund. I'll talk about that as well. Thank you.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you. Happy to have you on this panel. Last but not least, we have Lilian Chamorro.
>> LILIAN CHAMORRO: Hello to all. Thanks for joining this session. My name is Lilian Chamorro. I'm part of the team of Colnodo, an Ngo based in Colombia, South America. We have been working with community networks since many years ago, more helping communities to have their own infrastructure since 2017 approximately.
We have been involved in different projects with different parents and allies. I'm going to share it with you, some of the experience that we have in Colombia right now.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Lilian. Looking forward to those experiences and engaging.
Maybe just a brief on the structure of our session today. We will include, we'll have a keynote presentation to set the stage and this will then be followed by a dynamic panel discussions from the speaker as you heard from, and then afterwards, we'll open the floor to questions and contributions and I encourage each of you to engage your questions, thoughts and insights, experiences. We really help to make a decision in reaching.
We begin, I would like to leave all of us with a question maybe to think about and to reflect on and that is how can we reimagine financing model, and also financial model how we can achieve connectivity model and also universal access. With that said, I now welcome Carlos Rey‑Moreno to give us a keynote presentation.
Carlos, over to you.
>>CARLOS REY‑MORENO: Hello. Thank you, Risper, and thank you. It is a pleasure to be with so many on this panel. Actually, share screen. Let me know if you can see my screen, those on line.
I want to go back to the introductory remarks from Risper and why we are talking about this, right? The reality that we're, I also want to frame this presentation in the context of the WSIS+2 review that is taking glace at the moment to be concluded next year.
There is a reality, right, that is the continued inability to meet universal service aspirations that demonstrate that for ensuring WSIS vision, that people‑centered inclusive and development‑oriented information society, where everyone can create access and utilize and share information, we cannot leave it solely to traditional telecom incumbents operators to solve, that all the actors need to participate because, as Risper was saying, after 20 years, there is a massive digital divide that those business models are not able to close because over this time, seeing to focus from access to telephone, to broadband, to internet, now to meaningful connectivity that underscores that changing landscape, but throughout the change landscape, there are business case that meeds the profitability requirements of those operators continue to pose a challenge for these players to offer services that can bridge the digital divide in remote and rural areas with small populations and low income.
Despite being here today, despite many forum especially after COVID, discussing this issue, discussing the issue of the persistent digital divide, this has been a longstanding challenge. This wasn't produced in the mainline report in 1995. It was known that private sector alone was not going to be able to close the divide. Still, in that context, and donors and many international financing institutions, because it was thought for‑profit, a fully for‑profit model was going to be able to that and that private investment were going to find enough return as to be able to finance this capital intensive industry. They started to withdraw from the area in early nineties because that private capital in the pin.
So but later on, as part of WSIS, there was a task force on financing mechanisms that was created to precisely look at what could be done. As it was realized that private capital could not do it alone.
There were ideas of the digital solidarity fund that were started. The digital solidarity fund was created, maybe not as intended initially, but more with voluntary contributions, which did not quite solve the problem.
One of the things that the task force on financial mechanisms highlighted back in 2004‑2005, was the vital role of public finance as well because you know from this graph of the World Bank from 2002, that we have seen so many places, there is an affordability frontier, a market gap, and then an access gap that the market isn't going to be able to cover. Public intervention is going to be necessary.
This actually led to the creation of many universal or that report on the task force and finance mechanisms influenced many discussions for countries to create universal service funds, limiting agencies to actually utilize them and implement them.
And some countries, such as US promulgated the USF even before this type of reports. Ever since this report, many other agencies, or funds have been created. Report on the ITU mentioned that in 2022, 42% of members had a USF agency or fund.
And the adoption of the strategies, how it has worked, whether efficiency or inefficiency is up for debate. In some countries, it has a massive positivity, but in other countries, there has been issues with its disbursements. There has been issues with many other things.
I believe other speakers and during the discussions, we will be touching precisely on USFs. But they were there to solve or to look at that problem from that perspective that private finance was not going to be able to close the digital divide.
There were other findings from the TFM that were incorporated in the Tunis agenda that I wanted to highlight here. One was helping to accelerate the development of domestic finance and instruments including by supporting networking initiatives based on local communities and strengthening capacities to enhance the potential of funds and securitized funds and utilizing them effectively.
The Tunis agenda was adopted in 2005.
This is the PACT for the future. It was adopted in September 2024, that is three months ago, where the digital divided is recognized as its first objective. There is a persistent divide there that is there. It needs to accelerate. Closing the digital divide needs to be accelerated to be meet the sustainability goals.
There are two commitments there that I want to kind of guide the presentation today. One is innovative and blended financial mechanisms and incentives including in collaboration with governments, multilateral development banks and relevant international organizations and the private sector again, saying private and public and multilateral development banks are part of the solutions, and blended financing is part of the solution, but also, there is a need to invest on local level initiatives, right? I was said in 2005, it is said again in 2024, 20 years after in order to provide safe and secure network coverage for all areas, including remote and hard‑to‑reach areas.
So, why no change? Why are we still discussing this 20 years later? I think from our analysis on this, touching on the analysis that APC did on this, Commission on Science and Technology for development o the WSIS+s review, there has been little resources that has gone to the commission to developing countries and the WSIS didn't include a financial mechanism, a fund, mainly as a result of other countries not wanting to make additional financial commitments, but also, the fact that the lingering impacts of structural adjustments and a trend in development aid to discourage Global South governments relying on aid from investing in public sector infrastructure and services. And the burden after the period of forgiveness in the earlier centuries, that is the current crisis is at the center of many of the issues we are seeing in the global economy as well.
The idea that financial mechanisms have not just addressed the financial infrastructure issues, but also, there is a need to include, there is a need to invest in human capacity in digital public services to do this. There is not going to be infrastructure without the capacity, it will not solve this.
Also, because regardless of private finance and public finance, regarding of the USA, regarding of many of the other instruments, the logics have been supportive and using all the finance to support traditional income and operators and trying to support the return on investments and for‑profit and business model to do something that they are starting that the business model is not able to provide, the return on investment they are seeking in those areas. Again, something different needs to be done.
A lot of the USF, pretty much 99% of the USF, has gone to the very same operators that were using private finance for the operation.
Also, the public finance over and beyond the USF, multilateral banks only use 1%. This is a study from Alliance for Affordable Internet that around 1% of the multilateral development banks for community commitments in low and middle income countries over the period of 2012 and 2006 relating to ICTs was 1%, was 5 billion over that period.
There has been some changes. There are some initiatives such as the World Bank including ICTs as part of the digital as part of their priorities. The European Commission in Europe, Global Gateway, G7, the lead partnership for global infrastructure investment, the digital SE road, there are many, many more investments, but still, those in developments are going to the very same partners they are way less and the IPO and others considering to do that.
They are going to the very same places and investment and funding similar things in many cases and private sector and private financing is funding 5G, Leo satellites, submarine cables. They tend to focus on profitable markets that maximize the return of the shareholders. They are not going into supporting initiatives or supporting interventions that could potentially close the digital divide and address the issues that 30% of the system the digital divide are facing.
As Risper was saying, and I think as ITC and so many others have been saying over the years, they're not existing initiatives that are showing other ways of doing this, initiatives that are based on or business cases that are focused on the centralized local and community centre initiatives that are driven by completely different investment imperatives where it's not only that they need to be sustainable, they need to have some revenue streams to be sustainable, but they have a different bottom line around social and environmental concerns that move the interest not only for the sake of profit and return of the investors.
They are far from the micro, small, and medium size and businesses that are, as Risper was alluding to, part of the life blood of so many economies of the Global South, but that they don't, it's only recently that they are taking part of the telecommunications sector and that they are struggling to be part of global communications sector that is built for traditional and national based footprint.
This community center connectivity providers can operate and be sustainable as a small scale and have a way more diverse range of ownership and operating models by being community‑centered instead of profit‑centered, they are able to use other financial mechanisms to reduce their cost and be a center of the communications needs of the communities rather than the profit that their shareholders are seeking.
Over and beyond the initiatives we've seen that the ITU and other members have reached consensus that both telecommunications, the development conference, bridging the digital divide resolution that this type of complementary access solutions are needed not only at the WTDC, but also at the participants at the conference.
Again, all the member states agreeing that there needs to be, we need to look at complementary access solutions and enable them to close the digital divide.
The ITU, in the recent universal service financing efficiency toolkit is putting community broadband networks as part of the solutions that need to be considered because when we are looking at a way to finance the mechanisms, those that are able to do the same at the lower cost are a financing mechanism in and by themselves.
ABC is coming up with a financial assessment tool to compare last mile connectivity providers and the initial findings we are having is that they are considerably cheaper. Not only considerably cheaper, but that they bring along social inclusion related impacts to achieve meaningful connectivity that those incumbent traditional operators are not able to come up with.
So how are they able to do this? Well, the investment comes from the users themselves and they are also able to tap into other nonreturnable supports such as subsidies and grants or donations from people who are kind of aligned with that social mission, also public budgets and other mechanisms that private companies also use such as recovering the cost of hardware in the price of sales or private finance. But in the sustainability model, they also include other elements such as barter transitions, action‑based subsidies, membership fees, and others that public operators are not ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ private operators are not able to meet.
That's how they are able to provide pricing that is below market price. Sometimes it's based on cost recovery and sometimes it is even free of charge depending on these other contributions on the capital investment and the sustainability models that members and other socially‑aligned actors are allowing them to achieve.
It's not only that there are recommendations that are being incorporated in policy in some countries, not only existing initiatives that are able to do this at the lower cost, it's that financial institutions themselves, such as Latin American development bank and the Asian development bank, in their publications, are incorporating and recommending governments to look at these as a financing mechanism in and by itself as a way of closing the digital divide because traditional operators are not able to do so.
The broadband commission in this report from 2021 looking at financing models for bridging broadband gaps incorporates recommendations that recommends government to explore the options of feasibility of funding allocations to empower smaller providers such as community networks, recommends the potential beneficiaries from USF networks to include community networks, propose an international fund where projects that are less scalable, such as community networks, could be funded and could act as a clearing house for knowledge of best practices and potentially provide loans and other resources and concessional terms.
We have countries such as Argentina that are looking at supporting community networks. $3 million from the USF budget for 2020 to 2022 were made available to community members. One would say, but no, we cannot support community networks because bigger operators are doing a great job at that 100%. That's why we are referring to complementary solutions.
That's why Argentina allocated 0.63% of their budget to community networks so they could continue supporting other operations that they were doing with 99.37% of the budget. It's not that it's taking, it's not that what we are proposing and what others are proposing should be right, front and center of these initiatives. It's is about complementing, it's about testing things that haven't been tested, supporting initiatives that haven't been supportive.
So just coming to the proposed solution, and I'm coming to and end, one about capacity building, and again, I'm trying to talk to the WSIS, to talk to the task force on financing mechanisms because some of the finance are the same.
We can propose a new policy of financing mechanisms where that could provide an information service that provide access to independent advice on how to evaluate the formation that many governments and regulators are bombarded with from the private sector and prevent them from looking at other solutions that prevent them to negotiate as equals. Such information is also relevant and such advice is also relevant to other stakeholder groups as well to such as community‑based initiatives and other of their partners because task force and commission are the same, building human resource capacity and knowledge at every level is central for achieving the WSIS objectives.
Diversifying the ecosystem. We have that, we have some countries, such as Kenya, where there is national recognition, even a license, for community center initiatives, but the extension more so than the rule.
So that recognition that is on the ITU, that recognition that comes from the multilateral development bonds and other institutions need to be included and streamlined. So there are licensing processes that reduce the licensing fees and make other enablers such as spectrum and reporting burdens and access to backbone available. If it is illegal to do this, how someone is going to invest in them, right?
There are many investors that are already willing to invest in this if they were legal. So please consider that when, as an enabled financial mechanism as a prerequisite for this.
This needs to be accompanied by awareness raising and capacity‑building programs to develop the guideline of initiatives that could use effectively the instruments that are created. This starts again with a finding from the task force of financial mechanisms from WSIS that we're saying that policy and regulatory incentives are more open access policies are also needed for private investment organizations and community networks to continue to expanding ICP to rural and low income populations to address the bottom of the pyramid population.
That is to say these were said in 2004. The other recommendations that I'm making were said in 2004. If we don't include them in 2005 ‑‑ 2024 and 2025, we are not going to be able to implement it the GDC. We are not going to be able to invest in local networks in a way that they close the digital divide.
Two more points on innovative financing mechanisms. For that investment in local network initiatives to be effective, new ways to make smaller products available are needed. Multilateral development banks, they recommend supporting this, but they don't know how to do it because the meaningful investment that they can do in their country is $1 million, $2 million, $3 million. This is small operators. They don't need. There is no need for $1 million. They could function with way less, but we understand that making those deals available has the same transactional costs, so we need to look at producing those transactional costs per loan, per grant, whatever that we are doing, as well as finding ways of risking those investments so the rates are lower. There are donors up there that have got peoples that are willing to use this, to risk this to reduce the internet rates.
There are ways of working with local financial institutions that are public and that could benefit from those concessional loans and pass them on in this product so they could be made smaller and with better rates for the social mission‑driven operators. We could create pools of projects and a standardized process documentation that reduce the duplication of effort to, again, reduce the transactional cost.
This is not new. This has been tested in so many other sectors that could take the form of that international fund as proposed by the UN broadband commission.
The GDC is talking about blended finance. That blended finance, those grants could be used in places where it is impossible to find a return on investment of internal investment or start initiatives off. It could be used to cover some of the transactional cost that I was alluding above, but there is an interest on development finance. There is the UN financing for development conference that is taking place next week, sorry, next year after 10 years that could look into all of this, that could, you know, put operators that are looking at development, not at profit, at the center of this investment in telecommunications, but there is a risk and we have seen this already of those profit‑seeking companies looking at development finance that we need to be aware of and kind of be authentic, so development financing used for development is not used for profit, right? And for increasing shareholder value.
This is the last comment that also was mentioned by Risper. We need to improve the balance between profit maximization and the goal of reaching universal and meaningful access. The time has come of reviewing where those investments are going and how effective they are when they are targeting universal and meaningful connectivity, and we really invite the stakeholders to implement the solutions that we propose in this presentation. We are open to discuss, to set our lessons, to work together t do that, but really, development should be put at the center and not profit maximization.
Thank you very much.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Carlos, for that setting the tone for this discussion. Your brilliant presentation has given us why this discussion now and why it's important to start thinking around innovating financing mechanism for bridging the digital divide.
You mentioned a lot of the work that has already been happening, but in terms of the global processes as well as policy recommendations as well as tools that are being created along the way, and now with your presentation, also have brought out brilliant proposed solutions that different stakeholders can look into in realizing in bridging the digital divide and, of course, community‑centered connectivity stand as a viable alternative solutions that should get more focus, also visibility around supporting in bridging the digital divide.
This really sets the tone towards our next segment of this particular session. Now we'll move into the panel discussion and we'll hear from our different speakers that are lined up.
We'll start with Lilian in Thailand who are here with me, and for this segment, we'll look at framing the challenge and ideally talk about what are the main barriers to universal access, and why have traditional infrastructure approach failed, looking into various experience and also your expertise within the work that you've done, and also, while at it, perhaps you can talk around why our community‑centered connectivity solutions uniquely suited to address this gap.
So we can start with you, Lilian. Yes, we can see your screen.
>> LILIAN CHAMORRO: Thank you Risper and Carlos for the discussion.
Well, something that we have been talking about is that for the private sector, is the rural communities are not something that they want to address because those are communities with low income that they cannot pay high prices for those services, for the communication services, but also, there are few people in the remote areas and the investments that companies make in those spaces is difficult, they have the return to obtain what they invest in those spaces because we have fewer people.
And also, they the cost of the deployment of infrastructure in some of the rural areas is so, so high, this is because you need transportation, you need security also.
Sometimes, for example, basic services in electricity are not available and they have to implement. Also, other not only infrastructure not only telecommunications infrastructure, then the cost to deploy telecommunications structure in rural areas is so high, and the low income in the few population in those areas is not enough to cover the cost.
This is if we don't have in account other factors, for example, difficult to access to some territories, for instance, in Colombia, we shamely have areas where the violence bad, also the geographic is very hard to go to those areas. It's something that that is not easy to address even for implementing infrastructure, but also for sustaining infrastructure when you need to repair something or something like that, it's not so easy to go to that areas.
The other side, governmental programs have failed also in sustained initiatives. They invest a lot of money putting antennas, putting some infrastructure, resources finished, projects also finish. And we have a lot of, I don't know how to say, like infrastructure not used. Getting old without use in rural areas. You can see antennas, you can see a lot of infrastructure that is not used in rural areas because the program of the governments finish and no one could sustain the work of that kind of equipment.
About the other question, why community‑centered connectivity solutions are suited for them for this, I think one of the principle things is the flexibility of these kind of initiatives, flexibility to adapt to the diverse and unique conditions that every community have, then you, it's so difficult that you see community networks that works equal in many of the communities.
Each community network is different, have their own characteristics because the communities can establish their own infrastructure adapting to the geographic conditions, but also to the necessities they have. Also because the sustainability model that they adopt is different and depends on the context, the income that the community have.
Also, the traditional ways to exchange, I don't know to say it in English, but the exchange of services we could be.
Additionally, the communities can established their own governance process to define how or why the community network is for. And other reason, is not all reasons, but just one more, the possibility to share basic cost, for example, the connectivity for example, the transportation of some technical people who came to help to fix some problem, or the community can share the cost, can have different ways to board. For example, they invite the people to their house. It's not just about money. It's also about how community organized themselves to have the services that they need to sustain the community network.
>> TALANT: Thank you so much for the community to speak about the community networks. I wanted to share a story about how a small investment into a community network helped unlock major investments into infrastructure.
Just before coming to IGF, I was reading news in Kyrgyzstan. There was news that a very remote village in Kyrgyzstan, Zardaly, was connected to electricity. Ministry of energy personally came to the village and announced that now, the village has electricity.
Just a few weeks before that, the Ministry of Transport came to this village and said, I'm going provide you a road because this village had no road, no electricity, no internet. And before that, a mobile operator came and installed a mobile tower.
All of this is happening months after months in a village which previously, nobody has heard of. If you heard of it, would be once in a decade for some disaster happened or something.
The president himself flew to the village in a helicopter to say that we are going to help the village with infrastructure. Why all of this was, a year before that, the village was connected to the internet as a community network which a small grant from Internet Society Foundation and the very first thing that the villagers did was, of course, first to connect to relatives around the world saying now we have connectivity, please call us, we can call you. And the second they started making video of the village saying, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, we don't have a road, we don't have electricity, we don't have mobile connectivity, please help.
And like Carlos way saying, it wasn't millions of dollars were required to connect this village. It took maybe $10,000 to provide internet, but with this small investment, there villagers were able to attract hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government to do all of this infrastructure. We were really excited that we as Internet Society chapter could help the village to be connected.
And this was an interesting kind of case which is not PPP as we know, but I counted of 60, so it was a partnership of the public, the government, partnership with the private sector, ISPs who provided the spectrum partnership was there, provincial or municipal government partnership was there. People who believe in the village, and finally, a partnership of Civil Society organizations and international donors like ISOC Foundation, European Union, US Embassy, they have provided small funds that allowed us to connect this village to the internet.
And the way we learned how to do community networks actually in the IGF like this many years ago in Guadalajara. That's where we learned that there is such a movement of community networks. And I think today, there is a discussion that next year, there will be a decision, do we need the IGFs. Of course, for villagers of Zardaly, yes, we do need them because they make a real impact on the people on the ground.
So this is kind of my brief introduction. Hopefully, later on, I can share information about potential financing opportunities for such initiatives to close the digital divide especially, gender digital divide.
I wanted to talk about the Women in Digital Economy Fund. I think we have colleagues online working with women‑led initiatives, and this fund can provide support in terms of financing, in terms of technical assistance and know‑how and in terms of policy and regulations.
Thank you. Back to you.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much. Such a great story and just about to give what community connectivity can do in terms of even fundraising for this sort of initiatives.
Also, Lilian, thank you so much for highlighting from the community aspect and government based on this type of network and how, by pulling resources together, they can be able to sustain this basic infrastructure and even reduce the cost of this type of community‑centered connectivity.
Now, next, jump into the next segment. We will now hear regional insights on innovative policies and regulation.
With us in the room, we have Dr. Emma Otieno and also Jane Coffin. As I give them the floor, perhaps you can talk to us around what role do regulators play in enabling flexible community‑oriented licensing framework as well as how can universal service fund more transparent, efficient and inclusive to support more local connectivity providers. We can start with Jane and then finish with Dr. Emma.
>> JANE COFFIN: Thank you very much. It was so inspiring hearing everyone speak and it has struck me so much that when you start to think about the localized approach to providing connectivity, it's an obvious corollary that you need a localized approach to policy regulation and financing. That means looking at, as Carlos has said, different ways of assessing risk, different ways of bringing blended finance, we need different pots of money together at different times with different funders and different instruments, financial instruments. It's just very logical that you would look at this differently now.
As Carlos has noted, the 1985 Maitland Commission report, known as the missing link report, laid this all out for us years ago. The regulatory and policy environment has changed so much over time and does probably need to be recalibrated to the local circumstances that we are all seeing.
How do we find different ways of changing our policies and regulations to fit and adapt to making sure that different size networks, which have different demand and supply side economics than larger network investments, how do we take a look at this again?
And I think Dr. Emma will probably have a great deal to say here too, is that we've got to take some risks as policymakers and regulators and rethink how we're looking at local connectivity, infrastructure, assessment feasibility studies, what is out there, in a country and regulatory environment, because the investors want to see data, they want to see facts, they want to know how many people are not connected, where is that community located? What is the potential estimated cost of connecting that community whether it's through satellite technology, fixed infrastructure, wireless, fixed wireless infrastructure, or wireless solutions alone.
They want to see the facts. They want to understand. We also need some of those larger investment organizations and some of the localized investment entities to relook at these demand and supply side issues, what the regulatory and policy frameworks are that are in existence, and what needs to changed from that regulatory policy side and the financial side to match that local connectivity challenge.
One thing I would say is that regulators and policymakers have a fabulous tool in their hands in something called the notice of inquiry or a gathering of information process.
You can put out a notice and ask different organizations to provide you with information, and you can pull in all of that information to reassess, realign, and reimagine what you need to do.
The G‑20 this year and the digital community working group has even acknowledged that innovative financing is super important to connectivity. That is from the Brazil process this year. It's rolling into South Africa next year, in 2025.
So there's a recognition at the highest levels of government, at the highest levels of global organizations and financial organizations that the innovative approach to financing, the blended approach to financing that Carlos indicated, needs to be looked at.
And you have to the process regulatory corollary that match. It's not just, we'll bring in lots of money, but how do we bring in money? At a certain point locally, different vision of risk as well. There's an old way looking at risk that's a bit, I'm going to say this out loud, this is my personal opinion, colonial. It's a traditional different type of banking approach. We've got to de‑risk investment differently, so it's at that local level with the local facts and with the data so that investors have confidence, but the locally investors too which might be locally bought into the solutions that could be provided.
So really, if we're looking and reimagining how we can bring in, and Talant just talked about a network in Kyrgyzstan, that network is a completely different network economic and policy and regulatory solution based on what type of technologies can be brought in, how the local people can be brought in to also help with that connectivity solution, and so the investors are going to look at this differently. The government from a governance perspective is going to look at this differently as well. So it's matching that local sensibility, the local factors in place, and just taking steps back.
I'm going to circle back around. Sorry. It's a little late here, so my brain is probably a little circular, but please, as regulators and policy makers, give yourself a little breathing room to reimagine, to take a step back and work with the public, work with different financial institutions, work with ITU and the development financial institutions, but work with the multistakeholder community.
You also have APC, ISOC, other other where you can come in and get that information from all of the organizations who know that local circumstance. And then, of course, some of those financiers and investors that know the different types of blended finance instruments that can be brought in.
We really are talking about taking a step back, gathering more data, looking at new models that are being brought in, and looking at just the sheer fact that if we haven't been able to solve some of the connectivity problems since 1985 forward, we have seen how community networks can solve that problem, we've seen more regulators can come in and reimagine their USFs, we've seen how they can reimagine their licensing and bringing community and other complementary base networks, you really can create a matchup with the financing side now and looking at the different demands and supply side.
I'm going stop talking so Dr. Emma can jump in here. I'm really excited to hear more from the panelists and others, but I think we really do have an amazing opportunity to just rethink, step back, and gather more data and for regulators and policymakers, use that tool of the notice of inquiry to gather more information.
Thank you.
>> DR. EMMA OTIENO: Thank you very much, Jane, Carlos, and rest of the speakers who are really giving pertinent points to this very important subject of discussion and I will just augment the many points have already been stated very aptly in terms of how regulator can be this enabler for the community‑oriented networks in terms of coming in as the enabler for licensing existence.
I would actually state the following, and I'll be using, in the case of Kenya just as Carlos has said, that Kenya has made a bit of progress and very passionately and very intentionally, so when it comes to supporting the community‑centered networks of connectivity.
So one of the things and where it can start, it should be a good example for all the other regulators to go is to really take the issue of access gaps for the market when it comes to connectivity, gaps and usage gaps very seriously. I think that's where it can get start to create this appetite and create justification of where to place the community‑centered networks and where actually how to fight for their place in the fair market of regulation and in policy.
So for the case here, in 2021, there was an access gap study that was being undertaken and it went further to actually really take a microscopic view of the true gap because by that time, the connection in terms of population coverage had gotten upwards of 78, so we're in deep getting to the true gap space of what Carlos has shared as the access gap model.
With that, the beauty of a space like Kenya enjoys the combining of the regulator also being the board responsible for the investor front, so they very seamlessly speak to each other. When there is data, empirical data that the universal service fund brings onto the table, regulator really swings in and they're able to come on board with issues like, how can we use these findings to update the market structure?
That is how the case of finding a place to review the market structure and starting the process of incorporating the community‑centered networks into the regulatory framework in Kenya.
In 2020, the first day, the license framework was adopted, and since then, several community networks have been licensed, so that's another regulatory support that has actually been extended to enable this sort of networks.
Moving on, actually, the regulator should also move away from being the police to enabler, and like the question that has been asked, which is enabling. For instance, there's been a lot of deliberate hand‑holding that has come from the Kenyan regulatory center that the regulator is reaching out and really nurturing the community networks and the constituents.
Speaking to institutions like ABC, LocNet, and other capacity‑building facilitators and trying to champion can we have courses for capacity‑building opportunities that actually are centered to supporting community networks operators? And really, we're seeing that the capacity is a bit low, and also a bit not very enabled really enabled.
So when the regulator comes to the table and speaks, actually champions for their rights actually and speak for them in terms of let us locate, let us prioritize, let's ensure we not have a conversation where we're talking about the biggest market segments challenges without including community‑centered networks. So that has really been an enabling role that the regulator has played in this perspective.
This year, we've had several collaborative initiatives with the Africa communications, the capacity‑building arm of the telecom sector, the APC the regulator ministry to really ensure that the capacity of constituents in this space is being built. So there's been practical example that actually that is enabling them further.
Prior to that, there's the issue of making that space very clear. The existence of just the licensing framework, there needs to be additional guidelines that can really provide sort of things like handbooks, things like guidelines on how to really domesticate or rule out networks in different technologies.
Previous speakers have talked about various challenges that are facing these connectivity initiatives. The challenges in some areas are the terrain. Other areas are security related. Others just about affordability and financial support. So actually coming up with guidelines that incorporate the feedback from these operators so that they're out there.
So the people who are interested to come in to fill in this gap are able to be guided uniformly in terms of how they can go about it, even in terms of accessing support. What is the procedure? Where do you start from?
When it comes to this license, apart from being there, how do we start? Who do you talk to? Where do you go to for support? We find that they're quite not exposed because most of them are indeed from the community. They're from rural, so they really need a lot of guidance. Really broken down to granular guidance to enable them.
Again, speaking with the Kenyan situation, something that is ongoing and the process of even augmenting guidelines to support them is happening.
Also, the issue of sustainability. We find that being a subject that is very critical, but has to be center of this discussion all the time and if a regulator is coming in the front of being able to support the community networks.
When you have a licensed community network, you don't want to license it to one, so what are the discussions that can be put on the table from the policy perspective from bringing on board the other agencies as collaboratives.
For instance, the feedback we're getting from the community networks in Kenya is that the revenue agency seemingly want to expand their revenue base would actually go for anybody who seems to be putting up a business trying to speak for them. They cannot be able to go as individuals to speak onto those tables, so that you are saying that this is the model which is working like this, which should be exempted. Talking about exemptions in terms of taxations, clear exemptions that are actually enacted in the law, speaking to other players like Ministry of Finance, central Banks. What avenues can actually come on board to assist to this community networks especially that we are seeing, that they have to get into the leveraging, the usage gaps, so they come up with a bit of products that can create that sustainability interface between the connectivity and keeping business running.
So that sustainability is a major issue regulators trying also to champion through various forums that can be able to listen to whatever is being proposed as avenues and strategies of enabling the sustainability of these community networks.
I'll quickly speak to two or three points maybe that touch on issues how this transparent inclusive ways of supporting this using the universal service fund. We have to rethink, as regulators, I think the universal service fund mostly, what are these other approaches that can be used to finance the community‑centered connectivity or networks.
Key point here, speaking from, again, the experience in Africa, that most universal service funds are using subsidies as a key support to the telecommunications bodies operatives and we find that this, even in the Kenyon situation, subsidy to a network, community‑centered network, might not be it because it's not for profit unlike the other categories of licensees.
So starting to move away from the traditional way of support to thinking wider about even if it's a government managing the Universal Service Fund framework for grants actually requires a bit of change in laws like the public financial management laws, the issues of learning.
The other day, we had a conversation with Brazil and they have a very good model where the Universal Service Fund is loaning these small operators, community‑centered networks to loan, so that is a collaboration, a very major shift in law bringing together the ICT ministry, the Ministry of Finance and the banks so that the Universal Service Fund can offer a loan. Many other models that, if time allows, I would actually speak about.
And then also, the issue of really getting involvement, engaging community‑centered connectivity networks, players in that space so that you get feedback that can include decisions that are being made. Also then strategies, like for instance, I've seen the current strategies currently other development for Universal Service Fund in the space of Kenya. Community networks, community sort of connectivity has been prioritized, very clear targets like by when, how many do they want, support, what framework should be put in place, what kind of stakeholder engagement and mapping should be undertaken. And then, of course, monitoring and evaluating how that is being implemented.
Finally, the last one is really collaborating with the agencies or governments or other bodies, let's say the IPC networks, the people who have the global perspective to champion for the community‑centered activities so they can support areas of research so that regulators can have updated data to inform decisions both on the side of universal Service Fund and the side of the regulation because they have the part of the pie that makes decisions that can impact on this, but they require updated data, and they may not have that resource in all instances to be able to make decisions.
So thank you very much. Let's see what other available opportunities can be to keep on discussing about it. So much about it. Thank you. I appreciate it.
>> RISPER AROSE: Brilliant. Brilliantly said. Thank you so much to our two presenters and for Dr. Emma for coming in and talking from the regulatory perspective.
Jane also, thank you so much for joining at this hour, and also just sharing and really underscoring the importance of regulators reimagining financing for initiatives community‑centered connectivity solutions and gathering more data as well as working with different stakeholders, really a multistakeholder approach to supporting the community‑centered connectivity solutions.
Dr. Emma, thank you so much for also highlighting the best, the case that has been happening in Kenya in terms of regulators hand‑holding the community network and what that looks like in creating an enabling an environment for community‑centered connectivity solutions. And of course, just highlighting the role of USF and how that alternative model and framework can really look into transparency of an inclusive Universal Service Fund in supporting community‑centered connectivity.
I am cognizant of time, and because of that, we'll jump into questions and answers. We'll have a discussion around that as we round out this very engaging conversation.
I'll start with the online audience. Hirira, are there any questions? Hirira, can you hear me? Are any questions online?
>> Might be having some connectivity issues. She was here before, but she's no longer on the panel. I can read them out if you want.
There were some comments in relation to, I believe this was made when Talant was speaking around how do we ensure that energy perspective is attendant as the critical enablers for internet governance.
And there was others that request Jane to expound farther on alternative risk perspective. Then request around how best practices topic, resources could be created. Can answer that one in the chat. Then maybe develop procedures or guidelines, highlighted by Dr. Emma.
Those questions around Jane to expand on the risk perspective. May Talant touching upon the energy perspective, around internet governance and as a critical enabler are the topic in the chat so far.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Carlos. So we can start with Jane, and then we can have Talant come in, and then finish up.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: Absolutely. And I'll be very quick so we fit in more people.
What we'd have to say is we'd have to take a look at the traditional risk checklist and risk matrices that are generally used for investment, and how look at how we would adapt them, and look at our own risk tolerance and the specific market or area we're talking about, and what the feasibility is of developing that infrastructure, building it out, different regulatory and policy parameters in a country.
And by reassessing risk, also taking a look at, there's some complications when people take a look at risk and look at a country and say, well, I'm not sure we can actually do business here. Well, if we're talking about a different focus from the community‑based perspective, with the backing of different governmental organizations in the country, different communities of interest, the way you're going to look at the tolerance for risk, your checklists for risk, and whether it's a social investment risk model, which is different, you're going to have different factors that you would use from both governance, policy regulatory, and then even from a more systemic financial perspective where there's some very different models that are used for assessing risk.
So this might be one of those topics that would be really great for another IGF or for, to one of the speakers has typed in the chat about what some of the best practices might be for reassessing, assessing risk in a country and how we can work and speak with donors at a different level, speak their language from investment perspective, but reassess how that would work with local community involvement.
I'll stop there, but it's more a question of if there are traditional ways of assessing risk that are tied to grants and loans, and how a government might look at a project coming into its country, or local multistakeholder approach to building connectivity would be put together, we have to start to take apart those traditional models and rebuild a different type of framework.
Over to you again.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Jane.
Now I'll give it to Talant.
>> TALANT: Thank you so much.
I think it's a great question. Thank you for asking about the governance because it's a really good segue into the publication that I wanted to bring your attention to. It's called policy actions to close the gender digital divide.
We are here today to speak about innovative financing mechanism for generally digital divide and the organization where I'm working is now focusing on gender digital divide because it's a major topic globally, and this initiative is called women in the digital economy fund, which was launched by USA ID, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other donors, which started as a $50 million fund, now is growing to 80 million and more as more donors are joining Microsoft, COIKA, Reliance Foundation, and this initiative is implemented by three organizations in the consortium. GDP, where I'm working also, Care International, and GSMA.
This initiative identified three areas where there has to be a lot of work done. One is the financing, so there is funds set apart to support women‑led organizations or organizations who are working on closing the gender digital divide. Secondary, I think it's the know‑how, how to do this kind of work. So there is opportunity for technical assistance to organizations.
Finally, third major area is policy and regulations. And there, myself and my colleague Wakowsky, who is sitting here in this room as well, we are working on, with the governments that are interested and willing to do reforms to close the agenda digital divide.
In this publication, publication has collected interesting promising practices from around the world and this will be an annual publication and, hopefully, that next year, we can see, Colombia and Kenyan case that would enable other governments also to get inspired and to work on closing the gender digital divide.
Finally, I wanted to say there are five core areas where the work is being focused on. One is access and affordability. Second is relevant digital tools and services. Third is digital skills and literacy. Four is safety and security online. And finally, as Jane was mentioning, the importance of data and insights which is crucial for policymakers and regulators to make decisions.
Thank you.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Talant. Absolutely we can finish talking about how we mainstreaming gender talking around financing for these type of initiatives. And thanks for mentioning what WeDef is doing.
Now, I will just hand it back to the onsite participants. Let me see how many questions we have in the room. Couple of hands. Go ahead.
>> Thank you very much. Thank to you to all the panelists. This session was very comprehensive, it needs ‑‑ please let me present myself. I'm Kosi Mezano. I'm from Berlin. I'm from Ministry of Economy and Finance. I'm also leads one NGO called Woman Be Free. We provide employment for, training and employment for ladies and women in our country.
When we talk about community networks, something very important for us. I want to know best tips of this process to bridge a good community network where we don't have problem on how we can make steps sustainable for a time. That is my first question.
The second one, relating with ladies and women, how we can put on the table partnership and such organization to provide knowledge somewhere to another countries like mine in Berlin. Can we make a partnership and provide knowledge that leads to our different communities? How can we do it now?
Step one, before, we are talking about is it available for everywhere region of the world, or specifically for some region and from some kind of stakeholders specifically?
Thank you very much.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much for those three questions. I would give the mic to Carlos.
I've seen you have shared some of the links in the chat. Thank you so much for sharing those things. So you can come in, and then also we can hear from Lilian and Talant, you have something? Okay, go ahead.
>> TALANT: On the first question, I hope someone in the room will share with you some of the links on the top. I believe they provide some of those guidelines.
(Audio difficulties)
>> RISPER AROSE: Sorry, Carlos, we can't hear you. Sorry, we still can't hear you. Just give me one minute.
Can you speak, Carlos, now? Let's hear.
No.
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: I haven't changed nothing about my setup.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: I can hear you.
>> RISPER AROSE: Give me one minute. One second. Can you speak now?
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: Hello.
>> We can hear Carlos. I think it's your side. We can hear Carlos clear.
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: Might be something in the room, setup of the room.
>> RISPER AROSE: It's on our side.
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: You can hear me somehow. You cannot hear me through the line? I'm confused.
>> RISPER AROSE: We can't hear Carlos in the room, so we are sorting that out with the technician Meanwhile, we can hear from Lilian and Talant, and then we'll get back to you, Carlos.
>> LILIAN CHAMORRO: I think the question about sustainability is the big question because I think we in Colombia have a methodology. When we tried the community‑appropriated network since the first beginning of the process, it have a series of steps to create a group to sustain the operation, but also, the users of the community network, when there is a problem, can't fix the network, I think that is one of the things that make that the network can sustaining the time, not to have a group of people in the community that lead the operation of the community. I think that is so important.
Try to find those persons that like the technology, but also like to serve the community and try to stay engaged to the community network and sustain the operation of their community network.
Then the other part could be try to find financial method to sustain the expenses of the community network, the way to sustain the connectivity, but try to be creative on that.
Then sometimes people also make some, I don't know, festivals or things that, for them, is easier to have the expenses. Or in other communities, they just put a contribution to sustain the expenses of the community. That is different in each community.
I don't know. I think it's okay.
>> RISPER AROSE. Thank you so much.
Talant, briefly.
>> TALANT. Thank you. In terms of building community networks, I think I could point out two organizations that are very strong at it. One is Internet Society, and we have colleagues here. There are guides for, step‑by‑step guides on building community networks.
The other one is Association for Progressive Communications, APC. Carlos, I think, could probably share some links, so very good resources.
In our case, Kyrgyzstan, engaging local community has been the biggest factor that has to be bottom‑up interest and approach.
In terms of fund, in your question, this fund is available for organizations around the world, in the Global South, but of course, the most priority will be the areas where the gender divide is their biggest challenge.
>> LILIAN CHAMORRO: Finally, I would like to say that it's important to exchange experiences between communities. For us, has been a key to have some encounters where people from different communities can know what is the experience of other communities, can change the problems, because they said, okay, it makes me see that it's not just my problem, that maybe many of us have the same problem and many of us can find the solutions for some problems. The exchange of experiences, I think is so important.
>> RISPER AROSE: Thank you so much, Lilian.
I don't know if we have one minute for Carlos. Carlos, you can come in now.
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: Hello. Can you hear me? No? Can you hear me in the room? You cannot hear me in the room?
>> RISPER AROSE: No, we can still not hear you.
>> I can hear you online.
>> RISPER AROSE: Unfortunately, Carlos, we can't hear you for now.
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: It's fine. Okay. Bye‑bye. Thank you for everything.
>> RISPER AROSE: We can share some of the links that has been mentioned in the chat and also by Talant, different resources produced by different organizations.
(Distorted audio)
>> RISPER AROSE: We can hear you now.
>> CARLOS REY‑MORENO: We don't hear them.
>> DR. EMMA OTIENO: They can't hear us online.
>> JANE ROBERTS COFFIN: That's sad.
(Online conversation inaudible in room)
>> RISPER AROSE: We can hear you. Can you hear us?