Several inputs on the WSIS+20 Zero Draft outcome document emphasised financing as a key concern. [1] APC’s proposal to establish a task force or working group on financing within the framework of WSIS+20 has generated strong interest. Some participants in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process have asked for additional details. At this stage, the key priority is to secure agreement on the principle that achieving the WSIS goals requires a serious and more coordinated approach to financing. Once there is consensus on this principle, the specific modalities and operational details can be developed through inclusive consultations. In the meantime, and to help advance the discussion, this piece offers additional context and ideas to build on APC’s proposal for a dedicated working group on financing, as outlined in our response to the Zero Draft of the WSIS+20 outcome document.
The proposal: A small addition with big potential
As stated in several APC submissions and presentations made in the course of the WSIS review, we believe that without a dedicated focus on financing, the implementation of WSIS goals will continue to stall. This concern was echoed in a recent joint blog post. Our proposal is simple, but its adoption is critical.
APC’s suggestion is to amend paragraph 72 of the outcome document to read as follows (new text in bold):
We recognise that harnessing ICTs for development and bridging digital divides will require further sustained investment in infrastructure and services, capacity-building, promotion of joint research and development and transfer of technology on mutually agreed terms, with public as well as private investment.
We call for the establishment of a dedicated working group or task force to explore and propose financing mechanisms to support implementation of the WSIS vision and goals, building on the outcome of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development and giving consideration to public finance, revision of the design and deployment of universal service funds, development bonds, tax revenue, and other forms of private investment and innovative and collaborative approaches.
We remain flexible on the exact wording of this proposal. What we feel is vital is clear and action-oriented recognition that a process is needed for taking financing WSIS implementation seriously.
How could such a working group or task force work?
We propose a practical, time-bound approach.
Where to house it?
Following previous WSIS practice, a dedicated working group could be convened under the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) with the collaboration of the WSIS implementing agencies, including the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), among others. It could also be convened by the UNDP – as was the case with the original Task Force on Financial Mechanisms established at the Geneva Summit in 2003. There might be other options too. As stated earlier, at this point we believe the details can follow. The priority now is acknowledging the principle that financing needs dedicated focus.
Process
Wherever and by whoever this working group or task force is convened, it should endeavour to keep costs down and utilise existing spaces. It could meet and hold public consultations alongside the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), regional IGFs, meetings of the CSTD and the WSIS Forum, for example.
Output
Again, there are many ways of approaching this. What we feel is important is to produce an actionable report with practical proposals for member states and other stakeholders.
Scope
Mapping and analysis: As noted in an earlier blog post, the group could begin its work with mapping of the existing digital financing landscape. It could look at what mechanisms exist and have proven effective, where gaps and inefficiencies persist, and how current funding flows align – or fail to align – with regional and national digital transformation strategies and the Sustainable Development Goals. Such an exercise would help situate the financing of WSIS implementation within the broader development finance ecosystem.
Proposals for strengthened mechanisms: The group could make suggestions for how to improve existing mechanisms, as well as suggestions for new and innovative collaborative mechanisms. It could explore how the “action areas” in the outcome document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (the Sevilla Commitment) relate to the WSIS goals. It could also draw on the work done within the WSIS framework itself, for example, by the Broadband Commission, and recently by the ITU in its Connecting Humanity Action Blueprint (September 2025).
Action areas in the Sevilla Commitment
|
The group could also consider WSIS-specific challenges such as gender-responsive financing and demand-side investment: What can be done to finance the skills, content, products and services without which digital inclusion cannot really bring substantial benefit to people on a day-to-day basis?
For APC, as a civil society network dedicated to social justice and sustainable development, having the group look at how fair and equitable taxation in the digital economy could contribute to funding digital inclusion would be important. As long as individuals are not disproportionately affected, for example, through high device tariffs or taxes on digital services.
In our view, it would also be important to look specifically at financing and investment mechanisms to enable local communities and entrepreneurs to invest in their own digital inclusion. The UK government’s contribution to the Zero Draft proposes an additional paragraph (72bis) on improving connectivity that we support in full:
We continue to recognize the potential to improve connectivity, especially in remote and rural areas, through universal service funds, community networks and publicly funded network infrastructure, among other tools, particularly in areas where market conditions make investment difficult.
APC is currently working with different partners on a specific blended instrument for financing community-centred local access solutions. This is being done in response to the fact that connectivity infrastructure development has been guided by large investment projects that have proven unable to provide meaningful connectivity in low-density, low-income areas. Hence, it is imperative to rethink that approach, and complement it by building on the experiences, lessons and good practices from other sectors that have successfully made financing available for smaller actors and offered concessional terms for social enterprises.
Membership
For this to work, the group must be genuinely multistakeholder and multidisciplinary, including people and institutions with expertise in financing development and diverse perspectives.
What this proposal is – and is not
APC is not proposing a mechanism to extract new, immediate financial pledges into the WSIS+20 outcome document (though that would be a welcome side effect). Nor are we proposing diverting current development funding to WSIS implementation. Instead, it is a proposal for a collaborative, consultative process that brings critical and diverse voices to the table – including those at the coalface of development – to look at how existing mechanisms can be improved and utilised more effectively and, where needed, what new mechanisms should be considered and how to achieve them.
Financing challenges in WSIS implementation is a legacy challenge
From the outset – since 2003 – there has been insufficient investment in financial mechanisms and support for realising the WSIS vision. One would think that if there is consensus between member states and other stakeholders on the importance of building a “people-centred information society”, then they would be willing to commit to financing it. This did not happen with the WSIS in 2005 – in spite of the UN Secretary-General appointing a Task Force on Financial Mechanisms (TFFM) in 2003 charged with making proposals to the Tunis Summit in 2005. In fact, when looking at the TFFM’s final report, it is striking to see how much of its analysis and many of its recommendations are still valid.
In many, if not most, developing countries, especially least-developed countries (LDCs), the implementation of the WSIS vision continues to face budgetary constraints, with inadequate funding for necessary infrastructure, capacity-building initiatives, and the creation of sustainable digital ecosystems, including access to electricity. This lack of resources has multiple causes, such as:
The fact that the WSIS outcomes in 2003 and 2005 did not include adequate financial mechanisms.
- The lingering impact of structural adjustment, a trend in development aid which discouraged Global South governments from investing in public sector infrastructure and services.
- The lack of prioritisation of the need for internet and digital infrastructure by developing country governments themselves.
- Reliance on mechanisms such as universal service/access funds, whose functioning requires updating.
- The assumption that market expansion and growth in opportunity would lead to sufficient private sector investment in digital development.
The debt burden, which, after the period of debt forgiveness early in the century, grew to its current “crisis” proportions.
A final word
It is a concern that most of the discussion on financing taking place within the WSIS and Global Digital Compact context thus far appears to be focused on artificial intelligence (AI), without consideration given to the fact that without sufficient basic digital, human, connectivity and institutional capacity, investment in AI is likely to merely increase the gap between digital "haves" and "have nots".
Ultimately, failing to address financing systematically in the WSIS+20 review would be an abnegation of our collective responsibility. We have a vision. Now we need a credible plan to pay for it.
Note:
[1] For example, inputs from the Global Digital Justice Forum, the United Kingdom, Colombia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS (GDRC-WSIS), Eastern & North Eastern Himalayan Region Network (eNorth East Network), Council for Social and Digital Development (CSDD), the North East Development Foundation (NEDF), the Informal Multistakeholder Sounding Board, Global South Organisation, Global Network Initiative (GNI), KictaNet, Konstantinos Komaitis, Knowledge House, Internet Society, Tech Global Institute (TGI), Central African Internet Governance Forum (CAF-IGF), West Africa Internet Governance Forum (WAIGF), among others.