[Telecentres] RE: [Telecentre's] Basic Telecentre Items

[klaus at chasquinet.org]

Dear Don

Let me add my 5 cents worth regarding your reply to Karin.

On 7 Oct 2004 at 20:01, Don Cameron wrote:

> A difficulty I have in providing input into this question of "What is
> a Telecentre" is exactly as you suggest; there is no single model.

There are no telecenter models there are only specific local community based 
telecenter dynamics as real community based telecenters reflects the specific needs 
of a community and the individuals that make it up. As every community is different 
the telecenter dynamic that develops is different. Only yesterday we where sitting 
with some community members and NGO's in the office thinking over a plan for the 
implementation of 10 telecenters in a very small region in Ecuador. And guess 
what, each community expressed different needs and conditions and subsequently 
each telecenter will be different in its implementation, runing and functions.

> Your post also leads to awareness that my input to date might be
> construed as suggesting that all Australian Telecentre's are funded
> and fundamentally the same. As you rightly suggest they are not and my
> apologies if I gave this impression. Many of our Telecentre's are
> located in comparatively affluent towns and communities and received
> start-up funds from Government. A great many others are located in
> impoverished remote indigenous towns and villages working with the
> very poor and illiterate. Like your example, many of these remote
> "Telecentre's" (usually not named as such) do not have computers or
> telephones other than perhaps a single donated satellite phone and
> exist with no Government support whatsoever. The reason they lack this
> support is because they were ineligible for funds lacking as they do
> in capacity to prove a potential for financial sustainability to Govt
> grant providers. This was identified by many practitioners as one of
> the fundamental flaws of our early grant processes - the fact
> recipients had to prove a capacity for sustainability before any funds
> would be provided. Those who could not prove this capacity did not
> receive any support. 

Here we are again on the subject of telecenter sustainability.

I fully agree with Karin that Telecenter sustainability is not just based on financial 
sustainability but that the understanding of sustainability in the context of 
telecenters has to include social, political, technical, organizational and cultural 
sustainability to name just the main ones. All these also have a financial value that 
can been determined. Just one simple example: a socially and culturally "healthy" 
telecenter has a direct effect on the health of a community. But lets stay with the 
Financial sustainability. I confess, I was one of the India Joneses, hunting for years 
after the holy grail of financial telecenter sustainability and many have seen the 
paper trail of articles I left behind me. In the end I have to say it where the 
telecenters that gave us the answer themselves. Those telecenters that responded 
to the real development needs of its user community and applied a "holistic" 
definition of sustainability simple survived, whilst those who failed to do so died.

Another example here. I recently visited a town where there where two telecenters. 
One build up first by a church organization was empty whilst 20 meters down the 
road flourished a community telecenter, full of users. What happened?. The church 
thought that chat is a dangerous thing ( you can not control with whom the kids 
might talk, it could be a protestant :-) and banned it from its telecenter,but the 
community has a very high percentage of migrants in the US and Europe. One of 
the main needs of this community was to keep in touch with their families and 
friends abroad through chat, VoIP, and mail. As the church did not give in on that 
point the community decided to put their money together and build up their own 
telecenter.  Now the Telecenter is also dealing with the tranfer of goods and money 
between North/South/North (in connection with a local credit union) and is an main 
factor in the development of small and medium enterprises in the town. The 
telecenter itself is a very profitable community business for the community.

In short, what I think we need to do is NOT to implement telecenters but to provide 
adequate training, support structures and the best possible conditions (connectivity 
options, rules and regulations and so on) for communities to develop their specific 
community telecenters. Community Telecenter Networks like Somos Telecentros in 
Latin America also play a vital role in that process because they provide the support 
networks that enables the telecenters to be sustainable in every sense. The secret 
here is that it is the communities themselves that support other communities, and 
they only know what works and what does not. Experience and hands on support is 
priceless.

> I'm not sure I completely agree that all Telecentre's are just "tools
> for community" because in many remote communities the Telecentre is
> the community. These are the type of Telecentre where the facility is
> often someone's home; where all the planning, management and resources
> are provided by the community; where gatherings are the community
> coming together for a common purpose. A tool describes a device or
> instrument; community describes a group of people associated by
> interest or purpose. In my experience of remote Telecentre's the term
> usually describes the people more than the tools or technology - i.e.
> "We are the Telecentre"; not "Here is the Telecentre". I'm not sure I
> have properly expressed this culture so I hope my words make sense.

 I still think that telecenters are just the "tool" used by the community but the 
community does not define itself through it. "We are the community and we are 
using the telecenter to sustain and develop ourselves".

Yours

Klaus

Klaus