Approximately 67% of the population in Asia and the Pacific uses the internet. However, the digital divide in the region remains a persistent challenge, with connectivity gaps existing both between and within countries, and between urban and rural areas. Disparities in access to digital technologies and the internet are also evident among different socioeconomic groups, with poor and far-flung communities particularly far behind. Hence, the economic and social implications for people living in these communities are profound, affecting everything from educational opportunities to economic growth and social development.
In recent years, community-centred connectivity initiatives (CCCIs) have become increasingly recognised as an innovative, bottom-up solution to address the persistent digital divide. They provide connectivity that is shaped by the community itself in a manner that reflects the different interests and relationships within the community, even if the community does not directly provide the infrastructure and services itself. Community-centred connectivity initiatives are complementary to the internet access offered by commercial service providers and statesponsored public access networks. Studies in Africa and Latin America reveal how significant CCCIs have been in reducing the digital inequalities in these regions. However, little is known how CCCIs in Asia and the Pacific have evolved and have contributed to addressing the digital and technological disparities in the region. Hence this report on research commissioned to better understand how CCCIs promote internet access in poor and remote communities, and to build awareness of their contribution to economic and social development in the region. As such, this study sought to:
- Map CCCIs in the Asia-Pacific region, and
- Describe selected CCCI models and approaches.
The mapping started with a secondary literature review that led to identifying 331 projects providing community-centred connectivity, and inviting them to participate in an online survey designed to gather information about their CCCI models. From this group, 31 organisations were selected for structured interviews and detailed analysis. As a result of those engagements 1,417 CCCIs were initially identified. They are mostly located in South and Southwest Asia (54.13%), followed by Southeast Asia (38.53%) and the Pacific (5.93%), and very minimal presence in Central and North Asia (1.34%), and East and Northeast Asia (0.07%). [1] The responses to the survey point to CCCIs being relatively a recent phenomenon in the region, as a majority of them were established from 2021 onwards and are still active, offering internet connectivity primarily.
The analysis indicates that CCCIs in Asia and the Pacific have become catalysts for social and economic transformation, particularly in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDAs). In addition, they have demonstrated success in improving access to education, healthcare services and economic opportunities. Both the survey and key informants (representing over 40% of the total CCCIs identified) validate LocNet’s 13 principles [2] and typology of CCCIs. [3]
The CCCIs involved in the more in-depth key informant interviews (KIIs) may be classified into three categories: self-provision, social business or entrepreneurial non-profit. Some have later ormed or involved in local social cooperatives. There are initiatives currently financed by the local municipal government. All the CCCIs analysed are community-centred, operating in mostly low-income and geographically isolated communities where internet access was either unreliable, costly, or non-existent. [4]
Two major motivations emerge from these CCCIs. For most, the provision of stable and affordable connectivity to communities was the ultimate reason for setting up the networks. In the process of providing connectivity, value-added services have been integrated to ensure that social inclusion and/or sustainability are achieved. On the other hand, entrepreneurial non-profit entities with existing social enterprises (SEs) have integrated connectivity efforts primarily to improve the productivity, incomes, social impact and sustainability of their enterprises. Almost all involve community organisations or members as service providers, resellers, and/or end users, and some involve partner communities in managing the passive telecommunications infrastructure.
The capital expenditures for most of the initiatives were externally funded through grants or donations. Many of the initiatives combined a myriad of investors – from locals themselves, to grants from development partners, to public finance, while most of the social businesses combined their own resources with grant support from external sources. In terms of operational expenses, most self-initiated and entrepreneurial non-profit organisations rely on user fees and/or grants, and two initiatives, which are now self-sustaining, rely on government support or user fees to cover the cost of operations. Social businesses mostly rely on advertisements or user fees to cover their CCCI services. For those who charge fees for connectivity services, prices are usually set below or equal to the market price.
The establishment of CCCIs has resulted in a number of social, economic and environmental gains for the communities covered. In terms of social benefits, they are no longer isolated from the outside world and are now digitally connected. Community centres have become gathering places where the residents can safely catch up, learn together, and discuss community matters. Moreover, they have been enabled to access government services that are otherwise difficult to avail or never availed of at all. Beyond accessing government portals online, the communities also see connectivity as a tool to influence the government and help make it more accountable. In addition, being online has allowed them to create and access educational and learning tools, as well as materials promoting their culture and traditions, especially for Indigenous communities. At the same time, the online networks have led to better coordination and security, safer communities, and faster emergency response during calamities and disasters.
In terms of economic benefits, the online content developed by the locals has stirred up tourism in several communities. Entrepreneurial non-profits in Southeast Asia have utilised CCCIs to improve the efficiency, market reach, productivity and incomes of the enterprises they implement and/or support. Others have found income sources by marketing their products online, engaging in the piso (coin) Wi-Fi machine rental and print services, selling internet vouchers, and practising sustainable agriculture technologies learned online. Meanwhile, several initiators note incomegenerating opportunities seized by users, on their own, due to the accessibility of the online network. The low cost of connectivity offered by most CCCIs has forced other local telecom players in the area to lower the cost of their own services.
The CCCIs have also contributed to environmental protection through promotion of sustainable agriculture; use of internet of things (IoT) technology to monitor agricultural processes, water distribution and environmental factors; and reliance on renewable energy to power their internet connections.
Regardless of legal form or CCCI classification, all the CCCIs were established primarily for social impact, adopting, knowingly and unknowingly, a social enterprise (SE) model. SEs are entities that seek to achieve both social and financial benefits from its services. Unlike traditional businesses that seek profit mainly to enrich the owners of capital, SEs contribute to resolving social and environmental problems while also distributing the wealth created to a broader constituency, especially those from the poor and disadvantaged communities and sectors. [5] Government support is necessary to ensure that there is a conducive policy and regulatory environment for these CCCIs, as well as the presence of financial and capacity-building resources to help establish and sustain the operator providing the connectivity.
The CCCIs studied in North and Central Asia have the financial viability, community empowerment and government support to sustain their initiatives for over a long period. For the rest of the regions, the social businesses are doing well in terms of wealth creation but may need to better involve the villages they serve towards more local involvement. The self-initiated and entrepreneurial non-profit initiatives in other parts of the Asia and the Pacific, meanwhile, have fully involved their partner communities in the management and operations of the network initiative but most still lack the mechanisms for achieving financial viability.
All CCCIs have raised concerns over the lack of enabling policies or vague regulations governing CCCIs, difficult and complicated licensing processes, and corruption in the regulatory system. Other challenges include unreliable power supply, possible competition in connectivity services, lack of community interest and support, impact of climate change, limitations in technically equipped human resources, and need to strengthen the people’s capacity to promote and market their products.
To thrive and fully achieve sustainability, CCCIs need startup resources and an enabling environment. Hence, governments and funders need to support CCCIs not only for their important potential to help connect the unconnected, but also as a segment of SE that seeks to create wealth and social impact for the poorest and most marginalised sectors. To address sustainability concerns and other challenges, the following recommendations are proposed:
Recommendations for government and policy makers
Create an enabling regulatory environment that supports CCCI development, and encourages investment. This includes:
- Recognising the role of CCCIs in closing the digital divide by integrating them into national broadband strategies and digital policies.
- Simplifying and streamlining licensing regulations and procedures for CCCIs.
- Establishing clear policies for affordable spectrum access and infrastructure sharing
- Creating transparent wholesale open access to backhaul capacity.
- Providing fiscal incentives such as waivers on import duties and taxes for investors.
- Contributing financially to CCCI development, such as through universal service fund allocations.
- Supporting technical assistance and capacity building for CCCIs.
- Involving government departments, such as education and health, which can benefit from CCCI provided connectivity as anchor clients and premises providers.
Recommendations for funders
Unlock additional funding for CCCIs that are financially sustainable and generate significant social impact. This includes:
- Reducing the burdens on CCCIs for obtaining subsidies and grants – increase project implementation periods, simplify impact metrics and streamline reporting requirements.
- Considering one-time grants to offset equipment costs.
- Using staged grant-making strategies that encourage CCCIs to move to new sustainability milestones that unlock larger funds at each stage.
- Using innovative financial instruments – blended finance, revenue-based financing, concessional loans, crowdfunding and credit guarantees, etc.
- Adopting schemes for financing end-user devices such as micro loans.
- Supporting elements of the meaningful connectivity ecosystem beyond infrastructure such as teaching and learning materials and applications in local languages, etc.
- Prioritising support for connectivity in vulnerable populations, including Indigenous communities, women-led social enterprises, those with disabilities and refugees.
Recommendations for CCCIs and stakeholders
Prioritising cost-effective deployments and efficient management to achieve financial sustainability and maximise impact. This includes:
- Adopting a hybrid funding approach, combining initial grant funding with sustainable revenue-based loans to cover initial operating expenses.
- Pushing for the prioritisation of resilient, climate-adapted solutions in infrastructure development to address impacts of climate change in exposed and vulnerable groups.
- Supporting capacity development programmes for CCCIs, and including platforms for learning exchanges to address common challenges.
- Integrating gender-responsive approaches from the planning stage, which includes safe spaces for Internet access, women-focused technical training programmes and local applications, and connectivity initiatives with women's entrepreneurship opportunities.
- Promoting community ownership and governance among CCCIs, involving communities from the planning stage and transferring responsibilities to local stakeholders.
- Targeting older people to acquire digital skills
- Situating network access points and administrative operations in places that are accessible to diverse genders, physical abilities, ethnicities, classes, castes, etc.
The future of CCCIs in the Asia Pacific depends on their ability to balance social impact with financial sustainability while navigating complex regulatory environments. Success will require continued innovation in both technical solutions and business models, always keeping community needs and empowerment at the centre of these initiatives. Given these challenges, the entry of the social enterprise sector as stakeholders of community-centred connectivity initiatives is a significant development in the region, as they pursue innovative and sustainable solutions towards bridging the digital divide.
See a preliminary version of the report here.
Notes and references
[1] For this study, the list of countries from Asia and the Pacific are the members of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), and the sub-regions considered here are those defined by UNESCAP.
[2] https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/principles-community-centred-connectivity-initiatives
[3] https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/typology-community-centred-connectivity-initiatives
[4] For the purpose of the mapping of CCCIs, member countries of UNESCAP that are also members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), namely Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Türkiye, were not considered given their level of economic development.
[5] Dacanay, M. L. (2013). Social Enterprises with the Poor as Primary Stakeholders: Responding to State and Market Failures in the South. EMES-SOCENT Conference Selected Papers. http://emes.net/content/uploads/publications/Dacanay_ECSP-LG13-67.pdf