Interesting stuff from the Community Media session

Content excerpts from the Community Media session below...
some questions that arose in my mind (to be considered after reading..)

~ How does the generally known and accepted term Community Media relate to our terms Livelihoods or Rural Access?
~Policymakers suggested that we do not position community media as a tool, but rather as an approach of giving voice, empowering, solving health issues etc. How does this relate to IICD's mantra of 'ICT is only a tool'...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Why is Community Media in Latin America so much stronger than elsewhere?

Answer by Bruce Girard:

‘In Latin America, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is/was very poor, not much listened to and rather partisan. Private media was listened to more, but only allowed a few ‘voices’ to be heard. This situation raised the need for alternatives.‘

Answer by Alfonso Dragon:

‘Key is also the relation to social movements within Latin America, e.g. the mines in Bolivia. New technologies are always being parachuted into countries, but if they are not related to social movements taking place or people empowering themselves, then there has been no ownership. There might then be access, but no ownership.

The issue of Social Sustainability is most important – when people value what is realised and will sacrifice part of what they earn to sustain it..

[Discussion was framed in model of 3 aspects of Sustainability: Financial Sustainability, Institutional Sustainability and Social Sustainability]

There are many community media initiatives in Latin America – some are supported by NGOs, but many are run by groups – women’s groups, rural groups, urban groups, etc. ‘

Q: The evolution of new technologies: The Case of Púlsar

Bruce Girard:

‘Pulsar was developed on the back of news technologies..

in ’89 the need was identified for an alternative news agency; investments were required of $50 million dollars which made it an impossible venture.

In ’95 we could use the internet, and were convinced by the new lower-cost potential. We took the plunge, even though no donors wanted to fund it because there was ‘no internet in developing countries’.

In ’96 Pulsar was set up, with 45 radio stations subscribing to its daily bulletin.

Shortly after 1,000 media organisations in LAC subscribe, with 400 radio production involved, providing a Latin American and Civil Society perspective on Latin American issues.

Building on new technology developments, Pulsar now sends ‘audiospots’ to radio stations which they in turn broadcast. They request $150 a month in membership for all the content, which is often paid by a UN Agency for the subscriber.

Lessons on Evolution over time: ‘Pulsar ran out of money because it was visionary..’ The ideas and technologies were ahead of general acceptance. Now it is still continuing in particular countries and in new forms, and its work is easier to be mainstreamed in current conditions.

Uptake of new technologies takes time, and often goes through different stages: Revolution, Break apart, Reform, Mainstream;

Question to speaker Grace Githaiga AMARC Africa Vice-President

Q: There has been a veritable explosion of Community Radio stations in Africa – why is that?

Grace: Because commercial radio stations do not have an obligation to public services. Community stations play less music, disseminate information, allow listeners to participate, community members can walk in at any time, etc.

Q: Yes, but why now?

Grace: People are questioning their governments, in line with the wave of democratisation, e.g. social surveys, people want to know what happened to public funds, local MPs are invited on to the station to account for disbursements of funds on air. Governance is changing: People are participating.

UNESCO rep on CMCs in Senegal:

Community Multimedia Centres (CMCs) have been spearheaded by UNESCO and SDC, programmes are now set to scale up. UNESCO and SDC want a network of CMCs.

Q: What is Government and Policymakers perspective on CMCs?

A: In Senegal, Governments’s attitude to ICTs is ok, but there is a poor attitude to Communication4Development. It remains a challenge to link the two.

It used to take 2 or more years to obtain a license for the CMC, do feasibility studies etc. In the period ’99-2004, only 17 licenses were granted. In the period 2004-2006 17 were granted again, so the time required is coming down.

Then the discussion switched to a Live Link to Bush Radio in South Africa using a suitcase radio station

Q: What impact does addressing ‘Communication Poverty’ have on addressing Poverty as a whole?

A: Bush radio’s activities only comprise radio for about 20% of its work. For the rest they distribute food parcels, run soup kitchens, etc. Radio is used to get the news out, to aid with crime reduction in the communities and to talk about AIDS.

Community radio stations in Africa have been hijacked by Christian and Missionary organisations.. The stations need funding, and Government needs to support the stations financially, not to control them.

The radio’s constituencies are the poor in townships, not many among them are seen as ‘buyers’ – therefore advertisement as a source of income is not realistic.

The message needs to get out to Governments and Corporations that Community radio/media is a very useful tool for poverty reduction and crime reduction – if that message isn’t getting through then we have the wrong service people!

Internet (re-)broadcasting – Experience from Jordan

In the past there were only 3 state radios, and civil society organisations had to broadcast via the internet. Then satellite broacasts were made which were often re-broadcast into Palestine. More recently, in 2004, the legislation of privatisation of media was realised – there are now 4 community radios in Jordan.

An example of where community radio assisted is in clashes in Ma'an town, southern Jordan, a very poor regional trade centre for the sparsely settled southern part of the country. Clashes arose over the price of bread, resulting in violence on the streets. The community radio was used as a tool to allow people to speak, voice their concerns and react to each other, and resulted in a sharp reduction of the violence once there was a forum to voice their frustrations.

Question to Policy makers – Why is it so difficult to get Community Media on the agenda and policy recommendations?

Gerolf Waigel, SDC, was the only policymaker present, and commented: SDC considers C4D and Community Media as a core pillar in poverty reduction, as a means to identify, articulate and voice concerns. However, the donor community in general tends to focus on a few topics only, e.g. ‘Health’, ’Education’; C4D is then seen as a ‘competing topic’ to ‘health’ à Community radio then is not just an instrument, but also a away of approaching involving the voice of the poor. That should be the message: An approach, NOT only a tool.

Some conclusions from the Community Media session:

1) the idea that community radio doesn’t have an impact is ludicrous and rubbish – the results are perhaps not amenable to LogFrames, but there are many cases that show evidence.

2) Community media takes time – it is not a question of short-term investment, but rather requires commitment over the longer term.

3) Changing policy & environments offer new opportunities but also threats. New technologies are allowing ‘people’s voices’ to hold governments to account. Again, there is a wealth of stories that demonstrate evidence.

4) In terms of working with linguistic diversity, there is no better platform than Community Media.

A problem is that Community media providers often see themselves as ‘Pocas, Pequenas & Pobres’ - ‘We have to see ourselves as Many, Big & Meaningful’

The session was structured into the Congress for Policymakers – however few policymakers were there (at the session and at the Congress in general).