Project Report

Arctic Information Communications Technology Assessment

May 2008

Steve Smith, Project Lead University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska USA

Arctic Information Communications Technology Assessment

Project Status

Background

This project grew out of a scoping workshop to consider appropriate Information Communications Technology (ICT) activities for the Arctic Council under the auspices of the Sustainable Development Working Group held in Washington, DC in February 2005. Out of that workshop, several options emerged, among them, the need for an assessment of ICT in the Arctic. The project was approved at the 2006 Salekhard Ministerial Meeting.

The overall goal of the assessment is to determine how ICT can increase the human and social capital in the North, contribute to northern economic development, and improve the quality of life in the Arctic. These goals correspond with the goals of the Arctic Council in order to support the sustainable development in the Arctic in social, economic and environmental issues.

Subsequent meetings of the AICTA Executive Committee were held in Finland (two meetings), Canada, the United States and the Netherlands. At these meetings, the scope of the project was defined, the assessment chapters outlined in detail, project schedules developed, and data gathering strategies agreed upon. The last meeting of the executive project committee was a conference call held on 31 March 2008.

Funding for the initial phases of the project have been provided by the United States and Canada but that amount is insufficient to complete the project.

A no cost engagement was offered by CiscoSystems, the network and telecommunications firm, and they facilitated planning meetings in San Jose, California in March 2007 and Amsterdam in June 2007. This allowed significant work to progress on an annotated assessment outline and the format and questions to be included in an initial survey. It was determined at those workshops to collect baseline data on ICT in the Arctic based on data already collected by international surveys completed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) organization of the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This would provide baseline statistics that would allow Arctic regions to be compared with other regions in the world. In addition, all the Arctic Council member nations have participated in the ITU and OCED surveys so there would be familiarity and, hopefully, existing data collection for the baseline survey questions. In September 2007, a visit was made by two AICTA Executive Committee members from the United States (Ben Ellis, Steve Smith) to United Nations offices in New York City to discuss the assessment.

It was further decided at the San Jose meeting and refined at the Amsterdam meeting to base much of the other information in the assessment on existing case studies, best practices and other existing reports, studies, and articles concerning ICT in the member nations. For example, there is the Russia Development gateway Project study, “Russia e-Readiness and e-Needs Assessment” completed in 2001. Each member nation has similar studies and reports in ICT. The work of the AICTA is to collect these separate studies and for the assessment authors to look for common elements among the successful applications of ICT, point out differences in applications of ICT that may be unique to a nation (due to regulatory environment, infrastructure differences, competitive options, and so on), and suggest opportunities for regional collaborations.

ICT plays a role in every sector of sustainable development. The geography of the Arctic makes ICT not only an important, but a critical infrastructure for sustained development and growth. It was recognized from the beginning of this assessment that ICT across the Arctic covers a wide continuum of installed and emerging technologies from the most advanced in some nations to significant challenges to deploy those technologies in other regions, notably the Arctic regions of Canada, Russia and the United States where the geography is extreme, the population thinly spread over thousands of miles and the cost of technology significantly higher than for urban areas. Yet even in these challenging regions there exists extremes with state of the art infrastructure side by side with underserved and unserved populations.

The baseline survey instrument has been completed and distributed to all member nations for completion. The response has been less than hoped. This is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report. The survey instrument is attached to this report.

Work on the draft first chapter is underway and that is attached to this report.

Collection of existing studies concerning ICT infrastructure and application among the Arctic Council members is underway and a partial list of those materials is attached to this report.

Further progress on this project has been hampered by lack of resources and participation by member states.

Work to Date

To date the following has been accomplished for this project:

  • Project Scope and Timeline developed
  • Annotated assessment outline developed
  • Baseline data survey developed and distributed and initial responses collected
  • Draft overview chapter written
  • Initial collection of existent member state studies and reports on ICT collected

The scope, timeline and annotated outline have been presented in previous reports to the SDWG. They have not changed significantly since the last progress report. For reference, these are attached to this report.

Baseline Survey Distribution

The assessment baseline survey instrument has been developed to collect data that is the same as ICT data collected from ITU and OCED surveys. This will enable comparative review of ICT in the Arctic, both as a composite region and by the individual nations, with other regions of the world. In addition, it has been hoped that since all Arctic Council member nations have participated in the ITU and OCED surveys, much of this data would be readily available. What has been unknown is how much of the data exists for the area, defined by each member nation, as Arctic. The ITU and OCED surveys collect data for an entire nation without separation intoArctic and non-Arctic areas. None of the ITU and OCED survey data includes such a separation.

The survey instrument was developed based on the discussions at the San Jose and Amsterdam meetings and all members of the AICTA executive committee had several opportunities to provide feedback and suggestions as the survey was developed. Helpful suggestions to improve the survey were offered by both Canadian and United States committee members. No feedback was received from other committee members.

The survey was distributed in December 2007. It was distributed to SDWG members and the AICTA executive committee. The survey was made available via electronic means for completion using a web based survey tool named Zoomerang. It was also made available in a document format. Responses to the survey were requested by the end of February 2008. That deadline was extended to the end of March 2008.

The survey is divided into six sections. This was done to facilitate obtaining responses from appropriate agencies and individuals in each country. The survey is intended for those with knowledge on the breadth and magnitude of ICT services provided in the Arctic region of each member state. The survey is not intended for the individual consumer of ICT services or the average citizen. While end user perspectives are critical, it is anticipated that those views will be captured through the collection of existing reports and case studies. The current project budget and timeline do not have the capacity for end user surveys. The assessment may indicate the value and need for such surveys. The AICTA has always been viewed as a starting point for future data collection, evaluation and consideration of ICT in the Arctic.

The six survey sections include:

  1. Demographics
  2. Availability
  3. Traffic, Pricing and Investment
  4. Broadcasting
  5. Industry, Technology and Policy
  6. Future Plans

Altogether the survey contains 31 questions, some with multiple items requested. Most of the questions ask for quantitative data but there is also some qualitative, narrative responses requested. It has been left to AICTA project members in each member state to determine the best way to collect the requested data in the six areas.

To date, responses to the survey have been received from Canada, the United States and Russia. In all three cases the responses do not provide complete data for all of the 31 questions. No response has been received from any other member nation. Based on the slow response, the survey deadline was extended from the end of February 2008 to the end of March 2008. At the February audio conference of the committee several strategies were discussed and agreed upon to attempt to increase the response to the survey.

The poor response to the survey may be due to many factors but two stand out as uppermost for the limited response.

First, there has been significant turnover among the individual members of the AICTA executive committee since the start of this project. Although every effort has been made to keep the membership list current, some individual members no longer have responsibility or interest in the project and project materials, including the survey, may not be getting to the appropriate individuals and agencies in each member state for action.

Second, it has been the experience in the responses received that the requested data, while based on previously reported data from ITU and OCED surveys, is not readily available for the Arctic regions as defined by each Arctic Council nation. Thus, the effort to extract the requested information is more difficult than originally hoped for and has slowed the survey process.

The active AICTA committee members have suggested remedies for both of these causes, which are described in the next steps section of this report. There may be other reasons for the lack of survey response but these are thetwo most likely reasons. Particularly the second cause – lack of existing data on Arctic regions – reinforces the need for this baseline assessment so a true picture of ICT in the Arctic is available.

Draft Chapter One

Attached is the rough draft of the first chapter of the assessment. It has not had the benefit of review and comment from the AICTA committee. It will expand as the other chapters begin to take form, as the baseline survey data is more fully collected and examined, and as theassessment authors-to-be begin to share their individual and collective views on ICT in the Arctic. It was anticipated the initial chapter would be in a more mature form by this date but that was based on expectation that more survey results would have been collected and that the chapter authors would be in place and have begun active discussion of ICT across the region so this would be a chapter informed by the collective views of experts. As it stands, the draft is an indication of the focus of this assessment and the direction it intends to pursue as the rest of the survey and case study information is collected. Its final form will not emerge until the other chapters have taken form and the baseline survey data has been analyzed and put into perspective.

Collection of Existing Reports and Case Studies

The intent from the beginning was to base this assessment, as much as possible, on existing materials concerning ICT. There has been a great deal published on specific applications, on communications technology infrastructure, and on successes and challenges in individual Arctic nations. This information has not been collected and synthesized in one place. It exists in many reports, case studies, evaluations, project documents, government summaries and other sources. It was felt that sufficient information is available. It simply needs collection and structured organization and presentation. The completion of this task should help reveal similarities and differences for each Arctic nation’s deployment and use of ICT.

The collection of this information has been ongoing through the AICTA project office established at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, Alaska. To date the key documents identified and collected are primarily those with an English language publication; however, work continues to identify all relevant material, regardless of language. Preference is for the most recent information but all relevant information is being reviewed. The process has been designed to be inclusive and have country experts sort the materials for relevancy.

The majority of the documents found so far have been those with a traceable publication history. Still to be unearthed are those grey literature items that may not be easily found through traditional library and other database searches and those reports, documents and other information items that exist as internal, unpublished material that will only be discoverable by those with extensive knowledge of ICT in any particular member nation.

The attached list of materials is by no means inclusive nor definitive but an indication of work to date with the expectation of much more to come.

Project Next Steps

Based on project work to date, five things need to happen next. They include:

  1. Collect broader response to the baseline survey, process and share results with project team.
  2. Follow-up on survey results as appropriate and needed.
  3. Complete identification and collection of supporting documents, studies and other materials for the assessment.
  4. Identify and engage collaborators for country and application specific portions of the assessment.
  5. Identify sufficient resources to complete tasks one through four.

Survey Completion and Follow-up

It was agreed at the February audio conference among those participating from the project committee (Canadian and United States) that two actions should be taken to gather a broader response to the survey.

First, to request each SAO and SDWG representative to identify a primary contact in each respective member state for this project through whom all communications could flow and with whom questions could be directed and problems resolved until the completion of this project.

Second, populate the survey questions with the most recent ITU and OECD data available for each country and share that “draft survey response” with the representatives identified above to help stimulate further response to the survey questions. The United States volunteered to undertake this task. As soon as representatives from each nation are identified, this task can be completed.

It is entirely possible that one of the outcomes of this assessment is that specific data for Arctic regions concerning ICT is somewhat lacking and member states may want to consider further work to collect this data. It was hoped this assessment would act as a baseline for future review and activity concerning ICT across our vast region.

The project plan calls for individual follow-up with key individuals based on the initial survey results. The Canadians have had internal discussions and have been active participants in the process. In the United States, a Telecommunications Workshop was held in Alaska in March, cosponsored by the Institute of the North and the University of Alaska bringing together the key providers and consumers of ICT in the Arctic for the United States. Substance follow-up in other member states remains to be developed pending further responses on the survey.

Collection of Supporting Materials and Identification of Collaborators

The collection of supporting materials continues with good response to date from Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States. The project is overdue for a face-to-face meeting among all ICT committee and other interested parties. This has not taken place while effort was focused on the survey and the collection of other information so the meeting would have substance and build from the body of information. The response to the survey has delayed this meeting. This will probably delay the completion of this project and that delay will be depend on whether the project should proceed on the partial data currently collected or endeavor to collect a more representative and more complete sampling of the data.

Identification of Resources

All the other next steps are dependent on the identification of resources to continue this project to completion as originally envisioned. Multiple member nations have been involved or expressed interest in this project as it began its evolution with the Washington DC meeting in 2005; however, to date Canada, Russia and the United States have been the only participants of contributing significant data and information. The only contributors of funds in support of the project have been Canada and the United States. Those funds have been sufficient for the work accomplished to date but are insufficient to see the project through to completion.