'Open access is no longer just a concept'

The Communication Regulators’ Association of Southern Africa (CRASA) is a forum of communications regulators and other ICT services stakeholders in Southern Africa. CRASA’s objectives include introducing effective competition through liberalization, and promoting an effective and efficient regulatory environment. CHAKULA spoke to its executive secretary, Isidoro Pedro da Silva, following a workshop on open access held in Johannesburg.

[Interview took place in 2006]

CHAKULA: What has CRASA's role been in the EASSy negotiations?

ISIDORO DA SILVA [IS]: As an advisory agency in communications regulatory issues in the SADC [Southern African Development Community] region, CRASA is actively involved and participated in the preparation process of the NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network for Eastern and Southern Africa project, which incorporates EASSy. But we are not involved in any kind of negotiations related to EASSy. As you are aware, the NEPAD e-Africa Commission was given the task of initiating a dialogue with ICT policy advisors in the region with a view to resolving any policy and regulatory issues as may impede or prevent the realisation of the rationalized regional network. It was noted that a transparent policy and regulatory environment needed to be promoted and regulatory barriers removed in order to encourage and increase private sector investment in the development of the agreed network. In November 2005 the NEPAD e-Africa Commission held a meeting in Benoni, South Africa, for senior government officials and regulators from the East and Southern Africa region. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a policy and regulatory framework within which the regional broadband network infrastructure in East and Southern Africa can be constructed and operated. This meeting was convened in response to a resolution that was passed by a meeting of SADC ICT ministers, which was held in Johannesburg in October 2005. The SADC ministers also requested that officials from other parts of East and Southern Africa be called as they also have an interest in the development of the cable. The November meeting resolved that regulators should start consultations within their respective regional bodies, such as CRASA and the Association of Regulators of Information and Communication Services for Eastern and Southern Africa (ARICEA). The regulators and their respective associations should thereafter liaise with the NEPAD e-Africa Commission on their input into the legal, policy and regulatory framework that will facilitate and promote the development of the EASSy network and its backhaul links. Upon several meetings and consultations, the e-Africa Commission developed the Protocol for NEPAD Broadband ICT Infrastructure for Eastern and Southern Africa. The Protocol on High Level Policy and Regulatory Framework for the NEPAD Broadband ICT Infrastructure is partly based on the report on NEPAD Broadband ICT Infrastructure for Eastern and Southern Africa. The report was presented and accepted by the meeting of policy-makers and regulators in April 2006, which took place in Pretoria, South Africa. The accepted report focused on the policy and regulatory aspects of the development of a terrestrial broadband ICT infrastructure for Eastern and Southern Africa. It is important to notice that inputs from CRASA in the preparation of the draft Protocol were also taken into consideration. As per public information, some countries signed the Protocol under African Union auspices in August 2006, in Kigali, and a decision was taken to leave the window open for ‘initial signatories’ until November 30, 2006. Since Kigali, more countries have signed the Protocol, and others are expected do so within this window period.

CHAKULA: There were a number of interpretations of open access put forward at the workshop. How do you understand the term?

IS: I do believe that open access is not a privileged subject for a limited number of ICT regulatory authorities or policy-makers. ICT stakeholders and civil society are the ultimate beneficiaries of the open access concept. As I have stated during the workshop, the main concern, as well as challenge for ICT policy-makers and regulators in Africa, is how they can use ICT for development and to address the issue of poverty reduction. To assess those challenges, it is necessary to look at the obstacles existing that prevent the wider spread of the use of ICTs as a tool for development. This includes a range of reasons such as the lack of sufficient and efficient connectivity, poor infrastructure, difficulties in the privatization processes versus network ownership, the introduction of effective competition, the need to change the licensing regimes, and so on. Having these factors in mind, there will be a need to find mechanisms to address the issues as well as to overcome the challenges. The concept of ‘open access’ must accommodate the needs of all types of customers, from smaller to larger institutions. This concept, therefore, must be applied differently at different levels, such as local, national, regional and international levels. In general and taking into consideration the IP network layers, I understand the concept as: “A concept that creates competition in all layers of the IP network allowing a wide variety of physical networks and applications to interact in an open architecture and allowing development of local solutions rather than centralised ones. In a practical manner, this is to allow anyone to connect to anyone in a technology-neutral arrangement with the ultimate goal to encourage innovative and low-cost delivery to users”.

CHAKULA: Some speakers suggested that understandings of what is meant by open access even differs between groups like the EASSy consortium and NEPAD. Do you agree with this?

IS: I partly do agree that understanding of open access can differ between groups. To backup the above statement I would like to mention that during the workshop the presenters clearly have mentioned that there are different concepts applied in different regions and environment. As CRASA’s representative, I’m not entitled and mandated to make any statement on behalf of the EASSy Consortium or NEPAD. Nevertheless, I do not agree with the suggestion that there are differences in terms of understanding the open access concept between EASSy MoU parties and NEPAD. Personally, I’m not aware that there is any difference regarding the open access concept between the two groups. During the meetings that I had the opportunity to be present when the two parties met, I had the impression that the proposed concept of open access adopted was widely supported by both groups.

CHAKULA: What is your understanding of the status of the EASSy project? As we speak, several countries have yet to sign the protocol. The future of the project seems uncertain.

IS: Personally, I do have a strong feeling that the drivers of this process and other partners are busy with the next stages of the project and that they are well prepared in order to make things to happen.

CHAKULA: Are you optimistic about the future of open access in Africa, particularly as far as East Africa goes?

IS: East Africa has an ICT infrastructure precedent that gives enough ground to have wise thoughts on the matter. Open access is no longer a dream or merely a concept. The outcome of the workshop as well as the group discussions are without doubt a reflex on what Africa needs and demands. Lastly, I would like to call to your attention and affirm that the Nepad ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network for Eastern and Southern Africa and respective Protocol are irrefutable proof that Africa is moving towards the right direction.