What do we want with Communication for Development? Are all media and communication pro-poor and development oriented?

Communication plays a fundamental role in long- and short-term development as well as in social change at both macro and micro levels. Communication, however, including mass media, community communication, ICT and interpersonal dialogue, is a huge and complex field with a range of types, effects and styles. This brings forward the need to clarify what exactly we are talking about when we are discussing communication for development. What role can or should different types of communication have in terms of social change or development? What types of communication is development oriented and pro-poor? What kinds of information are received, by whom and for what purpose?

Basically there exists a slippage in the word communication itself. Does it mean delivery of information or dialogue between people? Here it is important that we clearly state, what we are talking about.

One participant pointed out that we need to distinguish for example between media freedom and media pluralism, the latter meaning that many voices in fact come forward and that access is broad. Media freedom in itself does not necessarily mean that information is given and received by all, in other words.

Additionally it was argued that we need to look at the actual content of different types of communication. Lately there has for example been a tendency for a decline in the content of radio broadcasting in the South, where Western music has increased at the cost of news and discussion programmes. Having and listening to radio does therefore not in itself secure development-oriented information. One participant however pointed out that while being critical to the content of media, we should also be careful not to make strong value judgements in terms of what people should listen to and not.

It was furthermore discussed whether we should understand communication as a catalyst for development in itself or if we should rather view communication as a tool or ‘helping hand' for other catalysts such as a favourable political environment, NGO's, civil society or individual political leaders.

There was widespread agreement that communication could become an integrated part of all programmes – as a tool or method to support other development goals.

Key experiences show key points to pursue.

1. Continuity and Professionalism

It is decisive that we as donors do not set too high standards from what we can expect from communication activities. We must in other words be realistic about the technological gab and the actual limitations of especially mass communication.

Key showcases show us valuable experiences. For example Soul City in South Africa has shown us the need not only for strategic thinking, formative and summative research, but equally the need for a long-term perspective in any context at all.

There is a widespread need for professionalisation of the field of communication; this counts across organisations and countries in both south and north.

2. Communication as low priority within donor agencies

There general experience was that communication initiatives are given low priority within bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and organisations. There seems hence to be a general lack of commitment to the importance of communication for development.

Communication programmes and projects tend to be small, dispersed and under-funded, which inhibits adequate impact within the field. Low levels of staffing and lack of co-ordination within individual donor organisations is equally evident of the relatively low priority given to communication initiatives. There is in turn a tendency for communication to be an ‘add on' or complement to other programmes rather than as a central development issue.

In the cases where larger communication programmes are carried out they tend for example to be tied to a specific sector (health, agriculture etc.). This is however conceived differently in different donor agencies. In some this sector specificity results in limited time and funds dedicated to communication while in others, as in Danida, the sector approach marks the possibility – contrary to a project approach – to get involved in longer-term communication activities, including capacity building and professionalisation of the field.

A crucial challenge for the donor staff working with communication initiatives today is to advocate more strongly for the importance of communication for development within their own organisations or agencies. It was proposed that collaboration between communication advisers across the North Atlantic could be of great importance in the achievement of this goal.

Furthermore, it was argued that we need to improve the way in which we measure the impacts of communication activities by ways of core indicators. This could help us to convince our donor agencies to give more priority to communication.

3. How to show results

At the seminar it was strongly argued that there is a need to come forward with core indicators – not least qualitative indicators - to assess the impact of communication initiatives. This is a crucial element not only for the improvement of communication programmes, but also in terms of convincing and explaining to donor agencies how communication can play a crucial role in enhancing social change.

Showing results of communication activities can however be problematic. Firstly this owes to the lack of time, funds and manpower given to research by donors today. Secondly, many communication activities involve long-term impact, which are not easily measurable over a short-term period.

This puts many advisers in the field of communication in a dilemma. On the one hand there is the need to show results for increased funds and on the other hand there is a lack of funds, which limits the ability to professionally measure impacts and evaluate outcomes of communication inputs.

It is in addition generally problematic to measure the impact of mass media on wider societal changes as well as on individual behavioural. This is especially the case where there exists a high complexity of media and communication channels. It is in other words hard to exactly know which types of media (soap opera, newspaper, radio or interpersonal communication) actually make certain changes happen. A present problem is also to get information from commercial media stations, which have increased during the last decade.

Furthermore, we should be careful not to have too high expectations of the predictability of media and communication impacts. Due to the nature of communication and the very individual and contextualized interpretation of messages, one can never secure that the messages sent out are received as intended. It is in principle impossible to control the uncontrollable. Thus, to understand how messages de facto are received, a stronger emphasis on in-depth analysis is pertinent.

One way to strive for some level of agreement between message sent and message received is to make messages extremely simple. One participant proposed that we need to be more open towards learning from the communication strategies of trans-national commercial corporations, like Coca Cola and others. How is it that they have managed to sell their ‘messages' across the globe? This, on the other hand, may very well lead to a simplification of problems that are far more complex. For example, communicating about HIV/AIDS is in its nature complex and should, communication-wise, be handled as such.

4. Institutional Constraints within Donor Agencies

In a number of the agencies and organisations, represented at the seminar, departments of media, communication and information are separated. This contributes to a general lack of co-ordination and communication within agencies or organisations and has critical consequences for implementation. It also makes it difficult to influence policies. In DFID, for example, the separation between departments has additionally meant that communication programmes relating to social development has tended to be subordinated to programmes that relate to new technology and mass media. In SIDA, for example, very successful health communication projects as the FEMINA-Hip project in Tanzania runs un-coordinated with the department of democracy and social development. And in Danida, communication activities in agriculture in Southern Africa are supported with no co-ordination with communication on water and sanitation in Southeast Asia. The general point is that in most donor agencies, the generic values of communication are far from exploited enough.

5. Partner Relations and Communication Channels

A great challenge today is for donors to be able to identify the right channels of communication and to cooperate with the most appropriate and most professional partners in this field.

This was seen by a number of participants as an important basis for communication initiatives at all to work in practice.

Today the area of communication is becoming more and more complex with a larger range of different media organisations and with an increased recognition of the multiplicity of audiences.

The broader and more complex media scenario has happened partly as a consequence of new technology and as a result of the changed role of southern governments. The deregulation, privatisation and legal developments have made it increasingly possible for independent newspapers, community radios and TV-stations to emerge. Previously the media was largely or wholly owned by central government/the state in the South. Now many of these have been partly or wholly commercialised.

The increased complexity brings forward the need to examine what types of media and communication organisations and networks exist in each individual country. This is increasingly becoming a key element to draw on when a communication strategy is required vis-à-vis particular issues as HIV/AIDS or child health.

It also calls for institutional considerations for those donors (e.g. Danida) who traditionally worked with government as central partner.

Primarily the Nordic donors, represented at the seminar, agreed that it is still important not to leave out the government and the national leadership in communication initiatives. It is continually necessary to engage the government both for the purpose of connecting different media and communication networks and programmes at a broader level as well as for legislative and institutional purposes. But when engaging in a partnership with the government it is necessary to be clear about the different government's actual position with respect to free media.

In general, the challenge for donors today is to figure out a way in which to relate to all the different media organisations and audiences.

6. Co-ordination of Communication Projects and Programmes.

There is a general tendency for communication projects to be small, geographically dispersed and/or tied to specific sectors (health, education etc.). According to one of the participants this has consequences for the extent to which communication initiatives gain wider societal impact. Dispersion of communication initiative also tends to result in the lack of adequate research within the field, which highly compromises professionalism. When communication activities are part of a specific sector programme there is also a tendency for communication to gain a secondary status.

One of the participants proposed that we embark on a co-ordination approach rather than a sector approach. Co-ordination should both take place between and within individual donor agencies.

It was additionally suggested that we establish central or national level bodies, which carry out overall co-ordination and information gathering between the different individual projects or programmes.

7. Interpersonal and Participatory Approaches

At the seminar it was strongly argued that interpersonal communication at community level is a crucial tool for social change. Here the central aim is to bring forth the voices of the poor by using participatory approaches. This focus is a shift away from the traditional view of communication for development as synonymous with mass media and freedom of the press.

It is also evident of a more clearly relationship between poverty and communication.

It was argued that participation in communication at community level has shown to enhance the distribution of information, because it creates a sense of local ownership. Examples from HIV/AIDS information campaigns in Zimbabwe were given.

Overall, there is however a need for more research on how participation and interpersonal communication can be integrated into larger networks of communication.

8. Integration of Community Communication and National Level Mass Media

The increased focus by Rockefeller Foundation on community based change and communication, with the aim of giving voices to the poor, brought forward a discussion of how to consolidate mass media at the national level and interpersonal communication at the local or community level and not least how to develop these communication forms in synergy with each other for the benefit of specific issues. A pressing question today in this relation is how to get community voices integrated into the mass media?

Positive examples were given from Soul City in South Africa as well as from Brazil, where the voices of small communities had actually reached the national level. The roles played by soap operas and radios in local communities also provide good examples. Radio can especially be a good devise – depending on the content – to bring forward the voices of the poor, because radios are generally more accessible to the poor.

According to one of the participants the linking up with national institutions is decisive and critical for the sustainability of community-based communication or media as well as for enhancing a wider societal change. In this respect donors should aim at supporting links and networks both at local, meso and national levels.

In the facilitation of links between the local and national levels it is critical to be aware of the complexity of media organisations and audiences – including the relationship between government and commercially owned media.

9. Media Development and The Macro Contexts – Needing National Communication Analyses

A number of participants advocated for country specific strategies to communication activities with the inclusion of holistic and contextual approaches. In effect this means that donors should take into consideration the wider national context within which media and communication organisation work by examining the national political situation and leadership, national legislation, the historical media context, the relationship between rural and urban areas and in general the existing networks and channels of communication – both governmental and commercial. Donors, in other words, should not embark on one single model, but should assess each country individually, conducting a general communication analysis as the basis for further involvement. This can also contribute to the concretisation of communication strategies, avoiding them getting too abstract. A country specific approach is also important in terms of determining who would be the adequate partners in a communication programme.

Additionally, one participant highlighted the relevance of examining the institutional conditions for media programmes and organisations. In Ethiopia, for example, it took two years for a radio to start up, not due to lack of funds, infrastructure and personnel, but due to the time it took to get a licence.

It was proposed that donors in general should begin to think in the changes of the larger environments as opposed to the traditional thinking in projects. Communication can play a decisive role in this respect.

10. International and Regional Networks and Channels

International and regional networks within communication and media was argued to be an important means to fostering freedom of the press and democratisation in individual countries.

The Nordic donors referred to the Southern African media institute (MISA) as a positive example of a regional media network in the South, who embarks on joint-efforts towards freedom of the press. But there is also a need for increased dialogue between Southern and Northern journalists and media organisations, it was argued.