CONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND DEVELOPMENT
NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN THE SERVICE OF DEMOCRACY
COPENHAGEN, 15-17 MAY 1998

"The Right of Access to Information and the Contribution of UNDP’s Sustainable Development Networking Programme."

Chuck Lankester, Director, SDNP – UNDP, New York

---

CONTENTS

• Introduction
• Evolution of Rights:

- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- The Right to Development: Sustainable Human Development
- Rio 1992: Environment and Development

• The Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)

• Principles

- Scope
- Lessons Learned and Accomplishments
- Outlook

• Conclusions

I. INTRODUCTION

It is customary to express appreciation to the organizers of a Conference for inviting you to give a speech. Well, let me tell you speakers are not always grateful, but this evening I am. It is an honor and a privilege to have been asked by The Danish Association for International Cooperation and by PEN to join you in an examination of human rights and the right of freedom of expression. We all admire the work of your organizations. You have spoken out against tyranny and encouraged persistence and truth. But surely we also admire the courage of your guests who share your convictions but who work under far more difficult conditions.

I have helped to conceptualize and direct one modest, but I believe significant, programmme that has demonstrated the benefits of providing affordable access to information about sustainable human development. Our work began with the conviction that informed citizens make better citizens: that peasants and leaders make more intelligent choices about the direction of their lives and the decisions of their nation if they have the opportunity to learn what works well, but what also fails. But I have never before had to examine our deeper roots and the meaning of access to information in the context of human rights. This has been a new experience.

I must add it is a special honor to be asked to address these issues here in Denmark. This is a nation, a people with a long tradition of offshore trade and commerce and an appreciation of the varied resources, natural as well as human, which make up Planet Earth. And you have understood your fortunate position and given your expertise and a generous part of the fruits of your own work back to the less privileged. Denmark contributes an amazing 10% to the core budget of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). We do good work with your money. It is our joint responsibility to lower that percentage by making sure other fortunate nations appreciate the need to increase their contributions to multilateral organizations like UNDP.

Finally, I should underline that you are an unusually tough audience. Collectively you are very informed about the subject and highly motivated. But you are somewhat divided insofar as some are satisfied but others frustrated; some have a global perspective while others have far better local appreciation of the challenges; and I suspect some of you can sleep more securely than others. So I will outline the global situation from my perspective and share our practical experience on networking in the developing countries since 1992.

II. THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

We are together celebrating fifty years since, in the aftermath of the barbarity of World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by 48 affirmative votes, none against and eight abstentions, to respect the rights of individuals, and to secure and protect basic human rights. It was a remarkable achievement in 1948 and set worthy goals for all citizens of every nation. Tragically, despite the magnificence of the Declaration, far too many citizens in too many countries do not enjoy these rights. Indeed some countries do not recognize these rights. It is appropriate that we take stock of where we have succeeded and where we have fallen short.

This evening I will address two aspects of the Declaration: firstly, our interpretation in UNDP of the Preamble and Articles one and three with respect to economic and social development; and secondly, and in the spirit of the agenda of this Conference, I will address Article 19, the right to freedom of expression.

In the Preamble and Articles one and two there are a few vital words describing the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. These words are freedom, justice, peace, dignity and the right to life, liberty and security. Words inextricably linked to the work of the UN and its agencies. And while the Universal Declaration enjoys its 50^th birthday, we should not overlook the many other human rights instruments that collectively make up the international human rights regime. The most important of these is the 1986 Declaration of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the Right to Development, which states that individuals are the beneficiaries of the right to development. States do not have human rights; they have obligations. Human rights apply to the relations between individuals and the State. The 1993 Vienna Declaration gave international consensus to the right to development as a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights. And the right to development has been addressed in several recent UN conferences.

Take the precious word "peace": it was on everyone’s mind since the Universal Declaration was written immediately after a brutal, destructive conflict, a conflict over sovereignty and the security of national boundaries. A conflict between armies although by best estimates two civilians died for each twenty-five soldiers. But an astonishing 78 of the last 82 conflicts have essentially been civil wars, the consequence of intolerance, inequality, frustration and hatred amongst peoples within a common boundary. And ninety percent of the casualties have been civilians. But have we learned that inequalities breed tension, intolerance and unrest? Inevitably the cauldron boils over into war and horrible suffering. The message is stark, clear and simple. We cannot expect to find harmony and peace unless and until we alleviate these gross differences between the privileged and the disenfranchised in our world.

Let me take from the Declaration the words "dignity" and "the right to life." Well the facts are not in dispute. An estimated 1.3 billion people survive on less than USD1.00 per day; a billion are illiterate and of those who are adult, two thirds are women; over a billion lack access to safe water; nearly 900 million go hungry or face food insecurity; one third of the population of the least developed countries (LCDs) are not expected to reach the age of forty. These are not the statistics of progress; these are not statistics that spell "dignity."

And let me give you two more facts tonight to illustrate that while making progress toward dignity and the right to life in some areas, we are also falling behind in others. Thirty years ago we wrung our hands at the 30-fold disparity between the top 20% and the bottom 20% of the global population. Today the income gap is 74 fold: it has not just grown it has chasmed. And last year 423 individuals controlled more wealth than the combined annual income of 43% of the population of this planet. I find that profoundly disturbing.

The Right to Development: Sustainable Human Development

At this point I will transit from the Universal Declaration of 1948 to the 1986 Declaration of the Right to Development and the obligations of States toward Individuals. I have given you evidence that the challenges are growing, not diminishing, and one consequence has been that aid agencies have had to re-examine the development paradigms we have been following and to shift to a more holistic approach and focus more on the roots of problems. The UN family’s work for development and programmes to eradicate poverty, provide sustainable livelihoods and alleviate inequalities should be seen in this context. Poverty is itself a violation of human rights, and miners, field laborers, child weavers, and bricklayers working in virtual slavery under harsh conditions are fuel for unrest and violence.

In this context of alleviating poverty and addressing human rights I need to stress that women’s rights are also human rights and we must recognize their worth, their equality and their contribution to development by implementing legal rights, removing discriminatory wages and working conditions, and speaking out against violence and sexual harassment. In these areas the so-called western or developed world also has much to learn. Statistics Canada reports that two out of every 3 women in my own country have experienced some form of sexual assault according to our criminal code. This is a national disgrace, although at least we have the integrity to report it. It is in extraordinary contrast to the high standing Canada enjoys in the Human Development Index. And last week I have seen examples of the current billboard campaign that the Government of Poland has initiated; they show the faces of battered women and children under phrases such as "because the soup wasn’t warm enough." There is intolerance close to home that must be corrected.

I have mentioned the UN’s work on poverty and women’s rights. Two other areas we concentrate on are protecting and regenerating the environment, and enabling good governance with an emphasis on a participatory process, transparency, and accountability for action and inaction. We consider sound and vibrant national governance institutions including the legislative, executive and judiciary branches to be crucial for development. And we consider that other institutions protecting and promoting human rights including law-related NGOs, indigenous peoples organisations and women’s advocacy groups should also be supported. These programmes are central for the promotion of sustainable human development and I want to underline the critical role of an informed civil society, a society with timely, affordable access to information in addressing these injustices and promoting corrective action. I have a perception, but I may be wrong, that we sometimes focus too much on correcting the consequences of access to information – protesting punishment of critics of government policies, for example – while losing sight of the big picture. And the big picture is found in the billions and millions who suffer because of flawed policies, ignorance, greed and corruption. Addressing those inequalities must be a prime target of using information for development.

Finally, I feel compelled to note here the continued inability of many governments to recognize that prevention is less expensive that cure. The cauldron recently boiled over in the Great Lakes region in Africa and in the former Yugoslavia. And it bubbles in too many regions like the Balkans and Southeast Asia. The international community faces many years of expensive intervention to recover from ethnic cleansing and genocide. Moreover, humanitarian aid necessarily diverts funds from longer-term economic and social development. Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocations for relief, with a concomitant drop in development assistance, jumped from less than 2% in 1990 to 12% in 1997. And since ODA dropped from USD 61 billion in 1990 to USD 55 billion in 1996 the combined impact on the provision of development assistance has been devastating.

Rio 1992: Environment and Development

I have been speaking of current challenges that development planners confront, but I want for a moment to return to 1992 and the Rio Conference on Environment and Development. Because while the phrase "never again" was the motivation for signature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there was a distinct echo as the governmental and non-governmental conferences on Environment and Development concluded their work in Rio in 1992. But if the sentiment was similar the background was not. In 1948 it was the trauma of a brutal conflict: in Rio it was admission by governments that their development policies had failed to reconcile economic growth and sustainable development. The world, as if the citizens didn’t already realize it, was mucked about pretty badly, and governments found themselves signing declarations and agreements on climate change, protection of bio-diversity, on forest principles, and working toward other agreements to protect oceans and check desertification. And "never again" was their commitment to avoid future failures due to a non-participatory approach, and to henceforth deliberately engage all sectors of civil society in development planning processes. Civil society in this context is shorthand for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the private sector, the media, academia and research institutions and special interest groups such as youth and the physically challenged. "Never again" in 1992 had a less dramatic background, but the message was still powerful and one product of Rio, Agenda 21, with the signature of 172 governments, mostly led by their Head of State, was a forward action plan with unprecedented political authority.

In retrospect it is surprising that the need for open and transparent access to information, received so little attention during the several preparatory conferences before Rio. Chapter 40 of Agenda 21, "Information about Decision-Making", certainly corrected that.

III. THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT NETWORKING PROGRAMME (SDNP)

Before Rio, there was already a programme which had as its objective the transparent provision of information at affordable prices to all those same stakeholders of civil society who were engaged in the development process. This programme was the Sustainable Development Networking Programme. And although it centered around the Internet, very few of us, and certainly not I, truly appreciated the potential and power of this technology. But SDNP’s objectives were on solid ground. UNDP had already shifted away from almost exclusive contact with governments to include NGOs in its deliberative processes and we had begun to work closely with the business sector. And consistent with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, i.e.: "the right…to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers," it was clear that SDNP was capitalizing on the latest electronic communication technology to put teeth into an already universally accepted right. But Rio and Agenda 21 further legitimized the SDNP programme.

Principles

Let me emphasize that SDNP is not an environmental network, but as the name implies it addresses the need for sustainable human development. Certainly the management of natural resources is important, indeed perhaps 35-40% of inquiries at the field level are in this general field; but our emphasis is on all aspects of development so networking in the fields of education, health, and governance, account for a high percentage of activity and are encouraged. But we draw the line firmly at pornography, soccer and even to the dismay of our Caribbean colleagues, to cricket. Other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can serve you better there.

SDNP’s principles include insistence on a fully participatory process in the conceptualization and management of each country initiative. For each operation SDNP provides grant financing, typically USD 150,00 to 200,000 over 2-3 years for trained staff, generally one manager and one technical specialist; hardware and software; and funds for training and Internet connectivity. Effectively SDNPs are serving as ISPs with the distinct market niche of capacity building and content provision on issues related to sustainable human development, and like commercial ISPs, each SDNP is encouraged to reach out and grow the development community which after two or three years will contribute to making their SDNP partially or fully self-financed. Thus, every SDNP is demand-driven. We also insist on a feasibility study that includes in its terms of reference a survey of all ongoing or proposed networking to ensure there is no duplication or competition with other donors for scarce resources. We advocate use of state of the art and cost-effective technology; and an initial focus on the need to build a national information infrastructures and resolve regulatory and tariff issues.

Scope

The scope of the SDNP has grown significantly from pilot sites in 12 countries in 1992- 1993 to over 80 countries in 1998, the latter figure reflecting inclusion of the Small Island Developing States Network (SIDSnet). There is a reasonably good geographical balance, though with a focus on assisting the Least Developed Countries or LDCs. Africa has now emerged after a slow start, as the most important region. And increasingly we focus on those countries where programmes to introduce good governance and democratization will become more effective due to the sharing of information. An Annex to the posting of this statement on SDNP’s website at www3.undp.org will include criteria for the selection of countries that we began applying in 1994-1995.

Lessons Learned and Accomplishments

We have learned many lessons since we initiated the programme. I will list eleven of the most significant:

• the demand for access to information will exceed most forecasts, even the most optimistic;
• I cannot pretend there is perfect collaboration between the roughly 80 governments with which we have interaction and all other user groups. For example, two of three governments that initially had reservations about providing access to all users have not extended full cooperation to some NGOs. Nevertheless, the vast majority of governments we work with have respected the spirit of Rio;
• Some SDNPs can compete with commercial ISPs providing they focus on their market, offer competitive prices and distinct value-added services such as guidance in locating information, and more reliable service. SDNPs in countries with too few users to meet connectivity costs, or where infrastructure is inadequate may, however, require longer-term financial support through grants of subsidized access;
• As more donors and the private sector have begun providing connectivity to the Internet, so priorities can shift to providing relevant content and capacity building or training;
• Where Steering Committees, representing the various stake-holder groups, have been formed for managerial guidance they have usually been effective;
• Almost all of the countries where SDNP has initiated operations or is planning them, have a growing number of skilled personnel, minimizing the need for expensive international consultants;
• Few developing countries are investing enough in infrastructure or training to take maximum advantage of the communications and information revolution, yet full access to the Internet with at least a 64 KBPS line is now seen as a minimal standard, even by the poorest LDCs;
• Few senior executives in either bilateral or multilateral aid organizations understand the potential of information technology in the development process and how the delivery of the special areas of focus of their organizations’ development objectives such as gender, good governance and eliminating poverty can be enhanced. A fundamental cultural change is necessary. Consequently, a great deal of time and energy is wasted on internal advocacy. Moreover, few institutions show sufficient flexibility in their rules and regulations too effectively handle the IT sector. I often remind colleagues that one day in this field can be compared to one or two months of project preparation in agriculture or education;
• One corollary to the above is that aid institutions in general, but especially the bilaterals, are giving far too little attention to the application of information technology. And when they do awaken, throwing large sums in the wake of advice by expensive consultants will not work. The governments and the NGOs in the developing countries understand far better than us that to overcome years of distrust and suspicion will neither be easy nor swift. Both parties appreciate the vital role of having access to reliable information. Identifying "champions " from both sides, learning to appreciate each others needs, gaining mutual trust and consensus and creating win-win situations takes patience. And only when the desire to work together is well founded, the regulations amended and in place and the staff trained is the capital needed to build the infrastructure. But make no mistake. Tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars need to be invested in infrastructure in the next few years if the developing nations are to benefit from information technology in their quest to compete in the global economy. The opportunities for the private sector are great, but then so are the risks and pressures that the countries must understand and manage;
• Although partners in development can interact effectively once connectivity is established, an organized and well managed initiative, such as a national SDNP, which provides a "virtual meeting place" for the review of development proposals will greatly accelerate and improve interaction among the players; and
• A lot of progress has been made to open up telecommunication markets and introduce competitive pricing. However, some monopolies remain which usually restrict networking activities and the cost of access is still far too high for most users:

I have indirectly referred to accomplishments in the context of lessons learned, but I need to be more specific. At the macro or policy level, we have introduced some governments to the Internet and been witness to their own decision to reappraise how they can implement their national development plans using information technology. We have brought access to hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, and introduced them to the computer age. And we have created virtual meeting places where individuals and organizations that had hitherto been left out of the decision-making process can now participate effectively and in an appreciative and constructive relationship with other partners.

At the more direct or human level, SDNP has enabled students of one campus to interact with others. Precautionary health information has been spread over the networks in combating malaria or reducing the risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS. Community telecentres have provided farmers access to information on the cost of fertilizers, best application techniques, and the value of their produce in the market. Civic authorities have learned about improved water pollution technologies and improved solid waste disposal. Bio-diversity has been protected and indigenous women’s groups have learned about their rights. Dangerous substances have been safely removed and destroyed, blood donors identified, and lives saved. And in all these initiatives people have learned that they can benefit from having access to information about the experiences of others under similar conditions.

I have perhaps emphasized connectivity too much. We have also constantly given priority to training and capacity building, typically 20% of each national project budget. And increasingly our attention is on the need to contribute to developing content about sustainable development that is relevant to developing countries. In this context I would mention that a recent study we undertook of the status of networking and connectivity throughout Latin America and the Caribbean suggested that less than 2% of content about sustainable development practices is in Spanish or Portuguese.

And we have done all this with a staff that built from two to eight and a core budget that has averaged US$1.3 million per year. Initially we could leverage almost no funds, but now we are raising matching donations. But our contribution results from the conviction that helping people to help themselves yields immeasurable benefits. We have made a difference.

Outlook

The outlook for SDNP beyond 1998 is clouded for reasons to which I have already partially alluded. There is a serious lack of appreciation at the corporate level of the contribution of access to information in the development process. In my experience most aid agencies are similarly afflicted. And I mentioned declining ODA for development.

But I want to be less provincial and to speak with optimism about the role of information technology in development. By now you know I am an enthusiast; this is an exploding field and opportunities are limitless. But tonight, in concluding I want to focus on just two aspects: firstly, what I will call balance, for lack of a better term. What I am trying to articulate is the need for advocates and users to remain in responsible synergy. I consider the advocates, the promoters of IT at the country level will by and large be the NGO community. Their growth since Rio has been one of the chief positive outcomes of that conference and they are correctly pushing at the margins, constantly challenging the status quo, and endeavoring to be better informed and more involved. But the public sector will still be the focal point for most development decisions, especially at the critical policy level, and it is important that both advocates and users keep in mind the mutual benefits of working together. And we should not delude ourselves. Not all governments are appreciative of the work of the NGO community. Several recent UN conferences have hinted at the beginning of what may be termed a backlash at the involvement of NGOs. Their commitment, energy and enthusiasm often runs ahead of their respective government’s ability to organize them selves and prepare official positions. As a result, some governments are clearly worried they are losing control of the process. And they should be worried because they frequently are losing control. It is important for these governments to catch up and correct this trend before it sets back progress. The UN system also has a responsibility to make sure harmonious relationships are nurtured and maintained.

Secondly, I want to talk about outreach. SDNP’s contribution has been significant, catalytic but miniscule. If we have trained twenty users in each country there are 2,000 or 20,000 more who need exposure. And one box per SDNP node should open the door to a hundred other contributions: forty-two of the forty-eight connected countries in Africa have no connectivity beyond their capitals and this contrasts with declared intentions at the conference last week in Johannesburg to swiftly extend communications to every African village. Schools, hospitals, and agricultural extension agents need to be connected. One hundred-dollar network devices that are resistant to fire ants and spilled beer could be built today, but are not being built because we have to develop the market. Diffusion through local radio and TV stations must be better coordinated; we need computerized translation technology not just from English to French, German and Spanish, but to other indigenous languages. We need simplified search engines or browsers and most important of all we need to make sure people are not inhibited by the costs of exchanging or obtaining information.

In the context of market development we should reflect on the failure of the so-called universal access to the telephone. For example, there are only 2 telephones per 100 citizens in sub-Saharan Africa if we exclude the Republic of South Africa. In contrast, radio and television already provide near universal access, but their application remains primarily for entertainment. The potential of these media systems for education and development is infinite, but it needs direction and promotion by institutions that collectively represent the community. I consider this to be a priority subject for attention by governments and development organizations.

Just as rapid spread of the Internet has drawn praise, so increasingly it draws criticism. As connectivity grows so do the numbers of people without sanitation, housing, and health care. Planners who allocate resources must justify these investments and illustrate that access to information does yield social and economic benefits. Nobody it seems is good at benchmarking or setting indicators for success, but we all need good data, for example, by illustrating that bringing new literacy tools to schools will improve employment opportunities and will impact on poverty. We need to collect such information, document best practices and share them, or our progress may come in for deserved criticism.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an amazing instrument and has served humankind well, great challenges remain to be overcome before all our companions on this planet can enjoy their individual rights. The right of universal access to development information is implicit in the1948 Declaration and in the 1986 Declaration on the right to development, but it should in my opinion be specifically recognized as an inherent right and an essential component of the development process.

Information technology provides new tools to the development planner of unprecedented power. Each day we think we see the horizon only to learn of a new application. The degree to which out lives are impacted has only just been touched, and 98% of the population is not connected. The risks of abuse are great. The imposition of western values without counterbalance is disturbing, and the ease with which one can purchase a sexual slave over the Internet is not to the credit of the information and communications revolution. We must be constantly alert to such abuses. We must be vigilant that the already privileged and powerful do not use this technology to become more privileged and more powerful. The true value of the Internet lies in how it can level the playing field, foster more open competition, and help to attain sustainable development. Policies that emphasize a participatory approach, open systems and transparency will go a long way to limit abuses.

With today’s technology, with connectivity to almost all developing countries, and given the magnitude and urgency of the task to correct continued abuse of our planet, it is inexcusable that planning decisions be made without the participation of all persons or their representatives who will be influenced by the results. We should have inherent faith that the disenfranchised will make sensible choices that favor sustainable development providing they have access to information that permits them to make those choices.

I will conclude with some words I had the privilege to hear the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan deliver at last year’s Global Knowledge Conference:

"The great democratizing power of information has given us all the chance to effect change and alleviate poverty in ways we cannot even imagine today. With information on our side, with knowledge a potential for all, the path to poverty can be reversed.

Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family. We at the United Nations are convinced that information is a great democratizing power waiting to be harnessed to our global struggle for peace and development.

We believe this because we are convinced that it is ignorance, not knowledge, that makes enemies of men. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that makes fighters of children. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that leads some to advocate tyranny over democracy. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that makes some think that human misery is inevitable. It is ignorance, not knowledge, that makes others say that there are many worlds, when we know that there is one.

Information and freedom are indivisible. The information revolution is unthinkable without democracy, and true democracy is unimaginable without freedom of information. This is information’s new frontier, this is where the United Nations pledges its commitment, its resources and its strength."

Thank you for your attention this evening: perhaps I have spoken for too long, but the subject is vast, important and should not be shortchanged. My thanks once more to the organizers and my wishes for a successful conclusion to this unusual and relevant conference.

| Brochures | Workshops | Papers | Evaluations | SIS | Guidelines |