Stronger E-governance means better governance and more doable MDG Agenda!

True or False and Why?

Synthesis ReportElectronic Forum: 20 November to 4 December 2006Organized by: UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe & CIS

on ICTDHelp4U PlatformModerated by: Vikas Nath, Founder,

The DigitalGovernance.org Initiative

The Questions Posed:

1. [Value Addition of E-Governance for MDGs and its Recognition]

Is e-governance in your country understood to have an added value in helping achieve the MDGs? If Yes, pls tell understood by whom and at which level of Governance?

2. [Role of International Institutions: Push or Pull ?]What has been the role of UNDP and other international organizations in

supporting stronger e-governance initiatives in your country? Is it imposed by donors or is genuinely owned locally?

3. [Enabling Factors and Bottlenecks]What factors and conditions are favourable to better utilization of e-

governance potential and for the benefit for MDGs, and what are the bottlenecks preventing faster progress in meeting the MDGs?

The Global Forum:

Participants: 320+

Contributions: 65

Countries: 35+

1. Conceptual Acceptance: path to achieving MDGs is through Good & Effective governance and hence the role of e-Gov.

2. The advantage of e-gov is to reach the « unreached » and create « citizen-specific » services & development works esp. in rural areas.

3. Changes brought by e-gov have been remarkably irreversible. The process (but not pace) has largely been supported by successive National Governments.

4. Has led to greater scrutiny of government action in development works: adherence to the rule of law and reduction in corruption, and thus greater efficiency.

5. Growing-level of Recognition among government officials: there are early-adopters and laggards. But processes for putting vision to practice are mostly weak.

1. Value Addition of E-Gov for MDG Agenda and its Recognition

Positive Impact: Initially « Pushing » Government to get into right track via

process know-how and financial assistance. Later « Pulling » Government Initiatives via trainings and

technical expertise. Most useful in exchange of technical expertise and

strengthening the « Development Link » of e-gov projects. Most influential role is in creating E-gov learning centres

which are credible among government and citizens.

Negative Impact: False learnings and « unlearnings » are not delinked from

the learning proccess. Eg: Broadband versus Wireless. Not all pilot project learnings can be replicated at a larger

scale. (due to high level of customization and attention given to individual projects)

2. The Role of International Institutions: Push or Pull (Donor-driven vs. Ownership)

3. Enabling Factors and Bottlenecks Top-level political-will and coercive mechanisms but

supplemented by project-level champions to demonstrate impact within governance, education, health sphere !

Coercive mechanisms: Setting up of reasonable but clear-cut off dates and bureaucratic requirements to achieve e-gov targets to ensure transformation of governance processes occur gradually but surely.

Robust legal infrastructure and financing.

Attitudes and Mindets of Government bureaucracy. Governments are not-networked and most development

projects are still stand-alone (Absence of over-arching e-Gov. Vision to link together development works).

Most brilliant e-gov projects may weaken in presence of corruption or absence of legal oversight (Eg: Armenian e-Visa gets competition from corrupt practices.)

What about Partnerships with the Private Sector?

Business Partnerships are still an « exception » rather than a rule in development projects.

A narrow-definition of such partnerships exist-limited to sponsorship or financial assistance.

Absence of information and skills on how to create « win-win synergies- the motive behind e-gov for MDGs is « Benefits » not « Profits ».

Wherever Business Partnerships are successful, the impact is evident. Eg: Grameen

(Bangladesh) and ITC’s e-Chaupal (India).

Two Significant Observations:

« What is good for the Citizens is good for the Government » and this should be driving force behind egov for MDG projects.

The MDGs Agenda do not give due credence to ICTs for Development.

Goal 8 weakly argues the importance of ICTs.

Meet some of the 40 Contributors !

Graham Douglas, Founder, Integrative Federation, Australia

Vrajpal Sapovadia, Professor B.K Business Mgt, India

Ziad Haddara, Senior Programme OfficerUNDP/ ICT for Development in Arab Region, Egypt

Ehab Moustafa, Lead Consultant, Intercan Development Co.Ltd., Canada

Jane Larsen, Danish ICT Management, Denmark Javier Torres, e-

Governance for planning, ITC, Netherlands

Fouad Bajwa, General Secretary FOSSF Pakistan

Lasantha De Alwis, Corporate Secretary, Commonwealth Telecommunications Orgn. UK

Kumar Rajnish, Information Scientist, ENVIS, India

Philip Osei, Fellow, Univ. of West Indies, Jamaica

Kenneth Barden, Lawyer, Micronesia

Artashes Darbinian, UNDP, Armenia

And this is just the beginning …..

Thank You !

Vikas Nath, Founder

vikas.nath@gmail.com http://www.VikasNath.org

Networked Intelligence Matters !