Thanks to the Head of the Policy Evaluation Unit at the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr. Ashley Wickham, I was invited to the ICT stakeholder’s meeting to discuss the draft paper prepared by Professor Martin Hadlow of the University of Queensland in collaboration with Dr. Gordon Nanau of the Solomon Islands College of Higher Education. I attended in my capacity as the Interim Chair of the IT Society of Solomon Islands, fancy title but there is not much to the responsibility as yet.
However, here are some insights of the proceedings you may not be able to read in the papers and perhaps most importantly a commentary from someone in the industry with just a slight better understanding than a journalist. Lets just say an alternative view on what transpired during the meeting.
A National Conversation
I appreciate Professor Hadlow’s approach to the draft. He envisioned it to be a conversation but an important one. He believes that instead of writing it in the standard UN template and therefore speaking on Accesibility, Equality, Standardization and bridging the Digital Divide etc, the policy should be perceived as an important conversation. The conversation, like in real life, will be a two way dialogue and the mechanisms that govern or allow this conversation to occur must have some guiding principles on a broader national scale. This is an important point and one that interests me because this is where, stakeholders like the IT Society which is representative of all those professionals within this eco-system, will have a significant role.
Mary Thurston of the New Zealand High Commission emphasized the need to ensure that this conversation must be a two way dialogue. The policy framework must ensure this. I must add here that after some thought, I will submit to Professor Hadlow that the conversation apart from being a two way dialogue must also be inclusive, that it involves and enables everyone to participate.
Professor Hadlow’s paper also outlined 7 priority initiatives, the fundamental one being the creation of a Strategic Communications Unit, an idea which was strongly supported by the British High Commission, HE Tim Smart.
Impediments to growth and communications
Dr. Gordon Nanau spent time in three provinces with majority of time spent on Guadalcanal and Makira/Ulawa. His focus was on the current state of communication in the Solomon Islands. His summary of findings did not reveal any new revelations that would have startled me. For the discerning public, it would have been the same usual complaints that are otherwise found in every media outlet in the Solomon Islands.
Call for Action
Our Telekom CE, Loyley Ngira was a very quiet man in the dialogue but he explained to me later, albeit very briefly, that these initiatives have been attempted many times in that past and as a pioneer in these discussions he feels that the call for action is all that is left and crucial. Many of such noble attempts never get past the point where a concept paper is made and presented to government.
To this effect, Ashley Wickham, gave a very brief overview of what important milestones will be undertaken to ensure that this latest effort succeeds. However, participants also questioned the likelihood of this process going to completion seeing that a change of government seems likely in this year’s election. David Tuhanuku proposed the need to set up an independent body to carry this initiative forward in close association with Professor Hadlow.
Where is the support?
The wheels within the donor community has already turned. And if the presence of important donor agencies and high commissions were any indications, there will be very strong support for this initiative. While I appreciate the capacity of donor agencies to put much needed funds into this process, the real success as HE Tim Smart rightly suggested lies in the national push for a strategic ICT framework.
So who will do it?
Professor Hadlow’s call for a Strategic Communication Unit evoked the important question on who will head such an important, powerful unit? Discussion was varied and while the British High Commissioner and David Leeming were adamant it needed a visionary to head it and Fr. Lamani pushed for a specific name, none was forthcoming. Ashley Wickham lamenting that “for two years we have pushed for an Under Secretary for Communication but never got anywhere.” At one time when applications were called and recieved, the quality was just not there and in Ashley Wickham’s assessment – hopeless. He added most preferred candidates have been assimilated by the private sector and a leading candidate, Johnson Honimae, looks set to renew his contract with the Forum Secretariat. But government is now seriously working towards actively recruiting an Under Secretary who will carry this vision forward.
So where to from here?
Professor Hadlow will continue with the process and take comments from all stakeholders present until such time when the draft will hopefully turn into the strategic framework for ICT in the Solomon Islands. I questioned if the discussion paper will identify the stakeholders and outline the expectations of the strategic framework of these stakeholders? This did not generate much discussion but I hope the affirmative response from Professor Hadlow means it will. I appreciate that a wide consultation was done but I also believe that for a strategic framework to be successful, there are very specific stakeholders that will drive it and those stakeholders knowing what their role will be and the expectations that come with it will be important in fulfilling the objectives of any framework. For example, the IT Society will be an important stakeholder because we represent a strong technical community whose input and direction will be very important. Unfortunately, in my experience, sometimes Solomon Islanders require these roles and responsibilities outlined clearly.
Our unique position
Professor Hadlow makes an important point, one I have echoed in the past; we are in a unique position – as a late comer to the ICT scene we have the chance to learn from others and make the correct steps towards enabling ICT in every sector of our society.
From here on, as Our Telekom CE Loyley Ngira rightfully alluded to is an unknown but most notably the failure of all past initiatives – they never go beyond a concept paper. Let’s hope this time the right mix of people are there to take this initiative forward. Putting my IT Society hat on, I can see our important role as an advocacy group to push this initiative forward irrespective of what government is in place. When we hosted PacINET 2007 in Honiara, the development of a national ICT Policy was one of our objectives. Although not strictly our initiative now, I would feel a certain degree of satisfaction if this latest initiative comes through. One of our objectives in our very own concept paper is the formulation of a national ICT Policy too – government is taking the lead, lets hope the IT Society will also push for the same as would all the other important stakeholders.
Paul, thank you – I did cite the reports and read the paper that was produced. Incidentally, you were listed as a consultant so I would expect you to have more insight on the matter.
As I have said, I hope this latest effort will finally go through to the end but that we will have to wait and see – I am glad that an IT society can actually constantly remind government to implement the findings in these kinds of papers….so I think that is something we can take up. On the other hand, the efforts are driven by the ITU and I believe it is their agenda that each country must have a policy – so even if there was a change of government, the ITU may still perhaps persist with this.
Yes, it is a communication in general but IT will become the driving force behind any form of communication anyway – even the AM radio…thanks again for the input and comments – very valuable. by the way – I thought the e-pasifika paper was very comprehensive and addressed a lot of issues important for a policy paper. The approach in this one was slightly different.
Lynnold,
I recall a previous attempt at a national ICT policy…sponsored by the UNDP ePasifika programme in 2004/5 (can’t recall). All the stakeholders got into one room, a plan was put together and agreed, a report was produced and ….. nothing happened. The main first step we all asked for (a secretariat with one staff to “push” the initiative) never happened and without that, nothing further was able to take.
Cross ministry, thematic issues such as IT/ICt/ICT4D are very important and potentially powerful for changing things for the better, but because everyone owns them,, in the end, noone does.
I agree with the emphasis that Ashley and Martin have on a person to drive this. Without a single person whose full time job is to execute whatever strategy is imagined, too many other agendas and issues will interfere and, in the end, prevail. High level political support can assist with this, but even then, the way it will assist, is by -providing- such person for the role.
One other thing; when Martin and Ashley talk about “strategic communication” I suspect they are talking about something wider and deeper than “only” ICT. Being media and communication veterans, I suspect they are interested in a broad idea of communication, and societal communication, something that Martin’s emphasis on “a conversation” seems to speak about as well.
In some ways this latter theme is easier to see being strategically incorporated, though perhaps not in government itself, since it may be a difficult conceptual leap for an organisation that still thinks of itself as “provider and informer”, rather than “participant” in society.
Perhaps this time around, separating out the “biggest idea” of communication, from the “big ideas” about IT and ICT, at least at the operational level, might be a way forward.
Loyley is right – we have never gone beyond this point – and if we do want to move to new ground, i suggest one organisation facilitating SIG and providing an outsourced secretariat, might be the way to move things. The good thing about the situation is – almost anything is worth trying, if it means be able to move things along!
This is a bad time in the electoral cycle to keep new ideas afloat, unless they can be rushed into platform drafting after the election in July.Aug this year.
A safer alternative would be to “keep the candle burning” in terms of thinking and talking and scoping of an IT policy/platform. This is something that the internet society would be able to do, by keeping a timetable of bimonthly public talks for the next 18 months, using guests, locals, visitors, experts, laypeople and policy wonks, to keep the discussion alive. If copies of these presentations and brief summaries of these discussions were kept, all the better for feeding into a policy process as and when it decides to recognised ICT, or “I” or “c” or “t” for that matter!
Thanks for the report, really good to hear this being disseminated.
P