Whilst looking at ‘ICT4D’ projects in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, two major themes seem to come to the fore, time and time again. These were the marked disparity between the levels of ICT investment and internet connectivity between the various neighbouring countries in the region, and how the success of the projects and initiatives that had been undertaken seemed to be determined not so much by the level of initial investment, but by the amount of continued, on-going support that was provided, post ‘launch’.
A fairly obvious link between levels of economic and industrial prosperity and levels of access to ICT and the internet can be drawn from most of the information that is available about Central Asia. The region as a whole has much more restricted levels of internet access, both in practical and censorship terms, than is typically enjoyed in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the West, whilst ICT education is generally limited if not completely unavailable, and there is a lack of freely available information on what is actually provided in this area for people and their communities. Added to this, with several of the countries that occupy the region maintaining severe restrictions on what can viewed online, it is understandable that any drive to substantially increase access to ICT is seen as an up-hill struggle by those with more than a passing interest in the subject. It is also not simply a case that the wealthier and more economically advanced a country is, the greater the access to the internet, both in terms of number of users and the content that is available to them. It seems the situation is more complex, with certain comparatively wealthy nations in the region only allowing highly-restricted web access that is severely censored.
In an article from April this year in the Eurasian.org website, and with reference to the latest Global Information Technology Report, David Trilling casts his eye over the stark contrast in ICT fortunes between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, two former-Soviet states at the heart of Central Asia, but who’s levels of ‘relative’ prosperity – and adoption and deployment of ICT resources – are very different:
‘…They might be neighbors on the map, but Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan couldn’t be further apart in how they utilize information and communications technology (ICT). A model for the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan is charging ahead, according to a new report measuring how ICT affects competitiveness, leaving much-poorer Kyrgyzstan in its digital dust…’
The article goes on to explain the basis of its findings (the report itself), which uses various indicators as a means of measuring the effectiveness of ICT provision in the region in relation to social development:
‘…In its 12th year, the Global Information Technology Report uses the Networked Readiness Index – computed with 54 indicators – to compare how 144 economies “leverage ICT for growth and well-being.”
This year Kyrgyzstan ranked last among former-Soviet states, at 118, between Suriname and Bolivia. Kazakhstan on the other hand, at 43, beat out all post-Soviet countries, save for the advanced Baltic states…’
The article adds further clarity to these statistics, elaborating on how they are calculated based on various scores, such as ‘strong government vision’ , continued development in ICT infrastructure, and a support for ‘…stronger ICT uptake – as evidenced by the number of Internet users…along with households with a personal computer…and those with Internet access…’
As suggested with greater detail in the article, by contrast Kyrgyzstan struggles in pretty much every criterion. A simplistic view is that this is purely down to being a poorer, less-developed state, which despite having great potential mineral wealth has not been able to harness it to the extent that the oil reserves have provided for Kazakhstan. But there also appears to be a problem of sustainability, which may be down in part to a lack of education and understanding of how to make ICT work, long-term, to the benefit of the nation’s communities.
In a report published by the Asian Development Bank last year, entitled ‘ICT in Education in Central and West Asia’, the key theme that keeps appearing is how those nations under the spot light have far greater success with their community-based, educational ICT initiatives when a sustainable approach is used, prioritising (beyond initial investments) the additional on-going support and maintenance of IT hardware, adequate ICT training to teachers and practitioners, and maintaining investment to ensure ‘kit’ is kept up-to-date with software updates and an adequate antivirus solution.
Under the heading ‘Budget and Financing’ and with particular reference to issues with on-going support, the report first looks at Kyrgyzstan:
‘…Among its recommendations, the study notes the urgent need for governments to adequately fund school ICT operational costs and avoid under-use, misuse, or even non-use of the hardware provided and the widespread waste of scarce investment resources.
In the Kyrgyz Republic, for example, 25%–30% of computers supplied to schools were non-operational when surveyed in 2008. Participating countries reported high levels of non-operational hardware, also a common finding in developing countries outside the region; in some cases, more than 50% of computers in surveyed schools were reported to be non-operational. This is usually caused by difficulties in affording, or even accessing, reliable maintenance services. Difficulties in accessing maintenance services tend to be greater in rural and remote areas and this also widens the domestic digital divide…’
Elsewhere, the report echoes the findings illustrated in the Eurasian.org article, particularly in relation to ICT education, both in terms of student assessment and of the education of teachers themselves to be better equipped to teach via ICT resources:
‘…Kazakhstan has a significant training requirement because of the high level of subject-based activity in e-course materials development and the sophisticated hardware profiles of some schools specified by the Ministry of Education. Kazakhstan recognizes that its advanced ICT activity means that its training requirements are more complex and need to be upgraded, intensified, and widened as rapidly as possible.
This means that teachers need to be trained in ICT use on a subject basis using basic teaching and learning methodologies…’
In contrast, with reference to student assessments:
‘…Neither the Kyrgyz Republic nor Tajikistan has yet developed an approach to the assessment of ICT on student performance across subjects and has no effective monitoring of ICT use in schools.
Kazakhstan is confident of the beneficial impact of ICT, both in informatics and across curriculum subjects, and has produced case studies of innovative approaches after intensive research into ICT use and impact in the classroom…’
The report goes on to mention a fundamental factor that seems to appear throughout the region, particularly in more rural areas, and that is the lack of a reliable power supply, especially in school environments. A town or community may be hooked up to the national power grid, but this doesn’t guarantee that the schools there have continuous power available to them, uninterrupted, throughout the school day and beyond, which presents serious challenges when trying to maintain ICT infrastructure at a local level. In what little research material there is available, the power issue keeps coming up and is clearly a major hurdle to sustainable improvement and development of ICT in these areas.
Another factor that appears to be resonating throughout the region and in particular with the least developed states is the dependence on NGO investment, rather than local government or commercial, in maintaining any real longevity for ICT community projects. This appears to be even more of an issue when extra staffing is required to fulfil ICT training and education requirements, which may not have been allowed for when planning the budgets at educational establishments in the region. It is fair to say that dependence on NGO’s for financial assistance is inevitable in developing nations throughout the world and particularly when maintaining ICT projects and initiatives, which may not be initially prioritised at a local level. But when those states are not as open to international assistance and support as other parts of the developing world, as appears to be the case in some of the more complex environments in Central Asia, NGO assistance may not be as abundant or as easy to access than with the more public and well-documented initiatives in many African and Latin American countries.
What is clear is that whilst the initial ideas and enthusiasm to provide communities with ICT training, education and the required resources is admirable and has been taken up with great zeal in many developing countries, if it isn’t backed up with the necessary on-going support, continued training and essential maintenance, the dream of closing the ‘digital divide’ soon fades. The net result is not only a low uptake in digital connectivity for the communities involved, but a huge waste of resources when the original investment in hardware and training comes to nothing. If the real goals and aims are to improve people’s lives and opportunities through embracing the digital age, then the support has to be there from day one and to stick around until it’s no longer needed.
Further Information on Source Material
EurasiaNet.org
EurasiaNet.org is a New York based website, providing information and analysis about political, economic, environmental and social developments in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as in Russia, Turkey, and Southwest Asia.
For more information, visit http://www.eurasianet.org/
Asian Development Bank
Some background information (from their website – www.adb.org)
‘Since its founding in 1966, ADB has been driven by an inspiration and dedication to improving people’s lives in Asia and the Pacific. By targeting our investments wisely, in partnership with our developing member countries and other stakeholders, we can alleviate poverty and help create a world in which everyone can share in the benefits of sustained and inclusive growth.’
For further information, visit: http://www.adb.org/
Benjamin Smith 