WS #305 Financing Self Sustaining Community Connectivity Solutions

Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum focused on financing self-sustaining community connectivity solutions, organized by the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. The discussion centered around a comprehensive report examining how to bridge the financial divide that prevents community networks from accessing adequate funding. Professor Luca Belli introduced the session, emphasizing that the report presents evidence-based research rather than opinions, analyzing various funding models from blended finance to social return on investment calculations.

Chris Locke from the Internet Society Foundation highlighted the challenge of transitioning community networks from grant-dependent “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses, announcing a $30 million commitment over four years to support early-stage community connectivity projects. Marie Lisa Dacanay presented groundbreaking research on social impact measurement, demonstrating that community networks function as social enterprises providing three types of services: transactional, social inclusion, and transformational services. Her study of four cases across Asia and Africa showed social return on investment ratios consistently above one, with increasing value over time.

Claude Dorion’s structural analysis of 85 community connectivity initiatives revealed that most face significant financial constraints, with only a minority covering all costs through operational revenues. He advocated for blended finance mechanisms combining grants, loans, and flexible refundable products to address different aspects of project financing. Brian Vo and Nathalia Foditsch presented an investability analysis of nine community networks, finding strong demand and technical capacity but identifying structural barriers, particularly lack of access to capital and business planning skills.

The discussion concluded with recognition that community networks require specialized financing approaches that acknowledge their dual nature as infrastructure projects and social enterprises, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships and innovative funding mechanisms.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Financing challenges and solutions for community networks**: The discussion extensively covered the “financial divide” within the digital divide, exploring how community-centered connectivity initiatives (CCIs) struggle to access appropriate funding and transition from grant-dependent organizations to financially sustainable enterprises.

– **Social impact measurement and return on investment**: Significant focus on demonstrating that community networks generate measurable social value beyond traditional connectivity services, with research showing Social Return on Investment (SROI) ratios above 1.0 and increasing over time across multiple case studies.

– **Investment readiness and blended finance models**: Analysis of community networks’ readiness for investment, revealing that while technical capacity and demand are strong, structural barriers exist around business planning, capital access, and the need for mixed financing approaches combining grants, loans, and flexible refundable products.

– **Multi-stakeholder partnerships and coordination**: Emphasis on the necessity of bringing together diverse actors including donors, development finance institutions, private investors, governments, and community organizations to create comprehensive financing ecosystems for community networks.

– **Infrastructure and operational sustainability**: Discussion of practical challenges including equipment costs (CAPEX), operational expenses (OPEX), energy access, spectrum licensing, and the relationship between connectivity and renewable energy solutions in underserved communities.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present research findings and practical solutions for financing self-sustaining community connectivity initiatives, moving beyond traditional grant-based models toward sustainable investment approaches that recognize community networks as social enterprises with measurable impact and commercial viability.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently professional, collaborative, and optimistic throughout. Speakers demonstrated deep expertise while maintaining accessibility, with frequent acknowledgment of colleagues’ contributions. The atmosphere was solution-oriented rather than problem-focused, with participants building on each other’s presentations to create a comprehensive picture of both challenges and opportunities. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing concrete evidence and practical next steps rather than theoretical discussions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Luca Belli** – Professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro, Chair of the Dynamic Coalition Community Connectivity

– **Chris Locke** – Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the Internet Society Foundation

– **Carlos Rey Moreno** – From APC (Association for Progressive Communication), Remote moderator, Policy and program work in digital development

– **Marie Lisa Dacanay** – Founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia

– **Claude Dorion** – Director of MCE Conseil

– **Nathalia Foditsch** – Director of International Programs at Connect Humanity

– **Brian Vo** – Chief Investment Officer at Connect Humanity, Investment and strategy expert with almost 20 years of experience

– **Carl Elmstam** – Policy and Program Manager on Digital Development at SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency)

– **Alessandra Lustrati** – Head of Digital Development at the UK Government Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO)

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions and made statements

**Additional speakers:**

– **Senka Hajic** – Colleague and friend of Luca Belli, co-proposer of the meeting (mentioned as not present)

– **Gustav** – Representative from Common Room (mentioned and acknowledged in audience)

– **Risper** – Representative from Tandanet Community Network (mentioned as present)

– **Saul** – Former member of Zanzaleni (mentioned as online participant)

# Financing Self-Sustaining Community Connectivity Solutions: A Comprehensive Analysis

## Executive Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum, organised by the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity, presented evidence-based research on bridging the financial divide that prevents community networks from accessing adequate funding. The discussion brought together academics, investors, development finance professionals, and practitioners to examine approaches for transitioning community connectivity initiatives from grant-dependent organisations to financially sustainable enterprises. The session revealed strong consensus on the need for blended finance mechanisms whilst highlighting the unique characteristics of community networks as social enterprises that generate measurable social returns alongside connectivity services.

## Introduction and Context

Professor Luca Belli from FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro opened the session by emphasising that the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity has been working on these issues for a decade, with all reports available at comconnectivity.org. He noted that the presented research represents evidence-based analysis backed by thoroughly researched papers examining various funding models from blended finance to social return on investment calculations. Carlos Rey Moreno from APC served as remote moderator for the session.

Belli explained that whilst his colleague Senka Hajic, co-proposer of the meeting, could not attend, the session would present comprehensive findings on how community-centred connectivity initiatives can achieve financial sustainability. He highlighted that community networks create positive externalities locally, decentralising connectivity whilst generating new wealth in economic and social terms, positioning these networks as examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships that build concrete solutions.

## The Challenge of Grant Dependency

Chris Locke, Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the Internet Society Foundation, introduced a critical perspective on current funding approaches. He observed that “often we create grantrepreneurs not entrepreneurs,” explaining that development organisations inadvertently train community networks to excel at securing grants rather than building sustainable businesses. This creates a fundamental challenge: the skills required for grant acquisition differ significantly from those needed for commercial viability.

Locke announced the Internet Society’s co-fund with Meta, totalling $30 million with Meta contributing 6.3 million, to support early-stage community connectivity projects. However, he emphasised that this funding must be coupled with proper training and capacity building to help organisations transition from grant dependency to sustainable business models.

## Community Networks as Social Enterprises

Marie Lisa Dacanay, Founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia, presented research that redefines how community networks should be understood and evaluated. Her analysis of four case studies – Kasepuan Ciptagilar in Indonesia, Patardi in India, Tandanet in Kenya, and Senzeleni in South Africa – revealed that community-centred connectivity initiatives function as social enterprises providing three distinct types of services:

1. **Transactional services**: Basic connectivity and communication functions

2. **Social inclusion services**: Digital literacy, community engagement, and access facilitation

3. **Transformational services**: Economic empowerment, education enhancement, and social development

This categorisation explains why traditional ISP metrics and investment criteria prove inadequate for evaluating community networks. Dacanay’s study demonstrated social return on investment (SROI) ratios consistently above 1.0, with increasing value creation over time. The SROI methodology employed development indexing tools to quantify social impacts, providing concrete evidence that community networks generate measurable value beyond simple connectivity provision.

## Structural Analysis of Financing Constraints

Claude Dorion, Director of MCE Conseil, presented a comprehensive structural analysis of 85 community connectivity initiatives across three continents. His research revealed that most community networks face significant financial constraints, with only a minority able to cover all costs through operational revenues. The analysis identified access to financial solutions, fundraising capabilities, and equipment costs as the primary constraints.

Dorion’s findings demonstrated that community networks face particular difficulty in demonstrating performance and social impact to the financial sector, creating barriers to accessing appropriate funding. To address these challenges, he advocated for blended finance mechanisms that recognise the different financing needs of community networks, proposing a structure combining impact financing through grants, equipment through loans, and working capital through flexible refundable products.

## Investment Readiness and Market Analysis

Brian Vo, Chief Investment Officer at Connect Humanity, and Nathalia Foditsch, Director of International Programs, presented an investability analysis of community networks from an investor perspective. Brian noted his experience with a portfolio of projects totalling $7 billion. Their cross-sectional analysis of nine community-centred connectivity initiatives employed actual investment underwriting criteria, providing practical insights into investment readiness.

The analysis revealed encouraging findings regarding market fundamentals: demand for connectivity proved real with many networks achieving 30-50% take rates, and technical capacity demonstrated credibility. However, the research identified significant structural barriers that prevent community networks from accessing capital markets effectively.

Growth limitations stemmed primarily from lack of access to capital for CAPEX rather than operational expenses. The analysis found that whilst community networks possess strong technical capabilities, they require substantial support in developing business planning capabilities beyond their technical expertise. Brian recommended that the ecosystem requires a portfolio perspective rather than single-deal approaches to spread risk effectively, and suggested developing bespoke underwriting tools specifically designed for community networks.

## Development Finance Perspectives

Carl Elmstam, Policy and Program Manager on Digital Development at SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency), provided insights into development finance institution perspectives. He outlined a multi-layered investor structure with grants and guarantees providing the foundation, development finance institutions occupying the middle layer, and potentially private investors participating at the top with reduced risk exposure.

Elmstam acknowledged significant challenges in combining Official Development Assistance (ODA) funding with commercial investments, noting that ODA grants should not generate profits, creating complications when structuring blended finance mechanisms. He emphasised that portfolio approaches enable aggregation of community connectivity initiatives to spread risk and unlock capital at scale.

Alessandra Lustrati, Head of Digital Development at the UK Government Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), outlined her organisation’s support for last-mile connectivity through both policy and regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing. She emphasised that development finance should focus on creating better business environments for social enterprises and community networks.

## Energy Infrastructure Challenges

A critical operational issue that emerged throughout the discussion was energy supply. When Carlos Rey Moreno relayed a question from the chat about energy availability, several speakers acknowledged this as fundamental to network sustainability. Community networks in underserved areas often lack access to grid electricity, making renewable energy solutions essential for sustainable operations.

Gustav from Common Room, who was recognised as being present in the audience, briefly mentioned their experience with micro-hydro power in Ciptagelar, highlighting practical approaches to addressing energy challenges in community network deployments.

## Practical Implementation Challenges

The discussion revealed significant practical challenges facing community networks in their daily operations. An audience member representing Tandanet Community Network (with Risper from Tandanet noted as being present) highlighted that most community networks rely heavily on volunteers and personal resources due to limited donor funding, typically under $15,000. This funding level proves insufficient for the network equipment required to expand and serve larger areas effectively.

The practitioner perspective challenged some assumptions about commercial viability, arguing that community networks should be treated as social goods requiring ongoing subsidy, similar to health and education funding. This intervention highlighted the tension between social mission and financial sustainability that characterises community network operations.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

The discussion revealed high consensus across diverse stakeholders on several key issues:

**Blended Finance Necessity**: All speakers agreed that community networks require blended finance approaches combining grants, loans, and flexible financing mechanisms. This consensus emerged from recognition that single funding sources cannot address the complex needs of community networks as both infrastructure projects and social enterprises.

**Portfolio Risk Management**: Participants consistently emphasised that portfolio approaches aggregating multiple community networks prove essential for effective risk management and scaling investment. Individual projects present challenges in terms of scale and risk profile, but portfolio aggregation enables risk distribution whilst achieving economies of scale.

**Evidence-Based Analysis**: Strong consensus developed around applying rigorous, quantitative research methodologies to community networks, representing a significant maturation of the field from advocacy-based approaches to evidence-based investment cases.

## Key Tensions and Disagreements

Despite overall consensus, the discussion revealed important tensions around sustainability models. The primary disagreement centred on whether community networks should transition toward commercial viability or remain grant-supported social goods. Chris Locke advocated for developing commercial sustainability through training and capacity building, whilst community practitioners argued for continued grant support recognising the social good nature of connectivity services.

This tension reflects deeper philosophical questions about the purpose and nature of community networks. Whilst technical approaches to blended finance showed broad agreement, fundamental questions about long-term sustainability models remain contested within the community.

## Unresolved Implementation Challenges

Several critical implementation challenges emerged that require further development:

**ODA Compliance**: How to effectively combine Official Development Assistance funding with commercial investments without violating restrictions on profit generation remains unresolved, creating structural barriers to implementing proposed blended finance mechanisms.

**Standardised Impact Measurement**: Whilst social return on investment methodologies show promise, developing standardised methods for community networks to demonstrate performance and social impact to the financial sector requires further work.

**Regulatory Harmonisation**: Creating appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks that support community network licensing and spectrum access across different jurisdictions presents ongoing challenges for scaling investment approaches.

## Future Directions

The session concluded with recognition of several key development needs: establishment of facilities and funds that can aggregate demand and provide portfolio-based financing rather than deal-by-deal approaches; development of technical assistance programs paired with investment capital; and continued coordination across diverse stakeholder groups to resolve remaining structural barriers around regulatory frameworks, impact measurement, and funding mechanism design.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated significant maturation in understanding community network financing challenges and opportunities. The convergence of evidence-based research, practical investment analysis, and development finance expertise has created a foundation for advancing beyond traditional grant-based approaches toward sophisticated blended finance mechanisms.

The recognition of community networks as legitimate infrastructure investments with measurable social returns, combined with concrete funding commitments from major organisations, suggests positive momentum for addressing the financial divide in digital inclusion. However, successful implementation will require continued coordination across diverse stakeholder groups and resolution of remaining structural barriers.

The session’s emphasis on evidence-based approaches and practical implementation, combined with strong consensus on key principles, provides a foundation for developing the multi-stakeholder partnerships and innovative funding mechanisms necessary to achieve sustainable community connectivity at scale.

Luca Belli: All right, good morning to everyone and welcome to this session on financing self-sustaining community connectivity solutions My name is Luca Belli. I’m professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro and I also chair the dynamic coalition community connectivity that has proposed this meeting together with my colleague and friend dr. Senka Hajic that unfortunately is not here today with us and This year also we have had the exceptional help of dr. Carlos Rey Moreno That is has been the driving force behind the this outstanding Output that we had this year not only because of the content but because we managed to have hard copies Printed and delivered three hours before I boarded the plane. So they are let’s say that also today We have a further incentive For participants to join us at the table here because there are copies here on the right and on the left Also a further benefit if you join us at the table is that the mic is open so you don’t have to queue to make questions and and make statements having said that let me start by Introducing our distinguished panelists today. We have from my right Chris Locke, Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the Intent Society Foundation Then we will have or we have here our already introduced and today playing the role of the remote moderator Carlos Rey Moreno from the APC Association for Progressive Communication that has also been really Instrumental in organizing this work this year and has been with us over the past 10 years of dynamic coalition. We have Alessandra Lustrati here who is Head of Digital Development at the UK Government Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office the FCDO Then on my left, we have Marie Lisa Dacanay Founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia and Here on site last but not least, of course We have Claude Dorion who is Director of MCE Conseil Now we have also we should have also online already our two remote participants, so remote speakers, sorry Natalia Fodic who I see her here. Good morning. Buongiorno Natalia Director of International Programs at Connect Humanity and then we will have Karl Elmström who is Policy and Program Manager on Digital Development at SIDA also has been another organization has been instrumental to the organization of this of this work Now before we start, let me just provide a couple of minutes of introductory remark to set the scene First for the participants here to understand what we have been doing over the past Decade and why we are here today and second to understand the theme of today The coalition has realized a very long series of reports and policy suggestions that is available on comconnectivity.org Everything is already available including the PDF freely downloadable of this book you can also try to Search and find it on the IGF website, but it is a very tough and frustrating experience So that is why we have a dedicated website, but it is also on the page of the coalition under the reports now we have been Discussing community networks pretty much all issues that can be analyzed on community networks over the past years and actually this has been useful because It has also allowed us to have retrospective Over the past ten years over the past decade on what could be done to improve the architectures the governance The funding indeed which is a very important point and is the main subject of today’s debate and of this book. So this volume of today and also the presentations of today try to contextualize which type of community networks exist, then what are the regulatory problems that do not facilitate the funding of community networks, and then what could be the solutions, starting from empirical evidence, and this is something I want to stress. The report here is not a collection of opinions, it’s a collection of facts, it’s a collection of very thoroughly researched papers that are backed with evidence and analyze what could be the possible models, spanning from blended finance to other community solutions to support the community network initiatives, until what could be the social return on investment of these initiatives, and that is something extremely novel in terms of research and extremely valuable also for investors, not only for people that want to build one. And then we conclude with some recommendations that could be used by policymakers, by funders, and by other organizations. Now let me stop speaking, which is the hardest part for an academic, and let me give immediately the floor to our introductory remark that will be performed by Chris.

Chris Locke: Thank you very much, thank you for having us here, and it’s great to be on such a fantastic panel. I would also like to make another pitch for the book. It is a great book, but also it has a fantastic foreword by my boss, so I’m contractually obliged to promote the book, but it is an astonishing piece of work. We at the Internet Society have been involved in community-centered connectivity programs for a very long time, for a significant chunk of our 30-year history. We’ve been driving this from a practical angle, we run training programs to support communities to learn the very basic skills of crimping wires and building and designing and deploying computer networks, all the way through to the policy angle where we’ve been instrumental in helping the ITU, African Union, and other regulators to look at regulation to support community networks and to make them available from a perspective of spectrum. So it’s something that’s very much a core part of the work that we do. When it comes to financing, what we see, and we are a grant-focused organization, so we’re very much, and I’ve been in meetings with pretty much everyone on this panel, if not today, then in the last few months, explaining the position that we play as a donor and as someone that can support community-centered connectivity at those early stages. What we do is take someone from effectively zero to a few thousand users. What we can do is put that grant capital and training and capacity building in the first place to help these new networks get off the ground, and what that allows us to do is also then start to train those community networks in what sustainability looks like, train them in exactly how they can move from being a grant-backed organization to one that has some legitimacy and some sustainability. And this is a very difficult jump to make. I was saying in a meeting earlier on that in a previous role talking to someone supporting social entrepreneurs in Kenya. He referred to the fact that often we create grantrepreneurs not entrepreneurs. We create organizations that are very good at moving from grant to grant and as donors and as organizations I think we train people to be good at getting grants from donors. It’s a very different skill to then transition into being a commercial business and being a sustainable business. So when we look at how we can drive self-sustaining community connectivity we have to understand how we put financing in place that can pick up after the grant stage that can move through blended finance solutions into the genuine economic sustainability of community networks. But we also have to make sure that we are very good at training people to be able to build organizations that can cross that divide and build into that space. We’re committing to this over the next four years of our five-year strategy at the Internet Society. We’re committing about 30 million in capital as part of our co-fund on community-centered connectivity that we launched at Mobile World Congress. We’re very fortunate to have Meta as a partner for that. They’ve put 6.3 million into that pot with us and we’re talking to other donors to come into this facility as well and we’re doing that because we believe that one of the best ways of making sure we build a very robust first stage of financing is through partnership, is through working with other donors and through working with a lot of people who are here today to make sure that there is a coordinated and sustainable way of getting that early grant financing in place and also so that we can then we all use our connective knowledge to see how we do prepare those community connectivity projects for the next stage of their growth and the next stage of their financing process. So we’re going to commit to do this over at least the next four years, bringing other donor money in place and what we want to be able to do is see some real success in the projects that we fund and some real success in the sector overall to make sure that we build community networks, whether they end up as cooperatives, whether they end up as social enterprises, that can exist past the grant stage and can grow and develop their capabilities and their businesses. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Chris, for these remarks and also for stressing the role of the ISOC Foundation that has been also playing supporting community network initiatives over the past years. It’s also very good to know that that is an initial support and the final goal is to transform them into financially sustainable initiatives. Now let’s try to delve into the the contributions of our report today. We have the pleasure of having all the co-authors, at least if not all the authors. Lisa, you co-authored this piece towards measuring the social impact and cost effectiveness of community networks. It is an extremely interesting research, so please, the floor is yours.

Marie Lisa Dacanay: Thank you. So I’m going to be presenting the results of a research that we’ve had since last year on the social impact and cost effectiveness of community-centered connectivity initiatives. And to do this, I’ll be sharing with you the objectives of the study and the methodology that we used first. In terms of objectives, the study undertook social impact analysis of community-centered connectivity initiatives using two tools. One is development indexing and the other one is social return on investment. Development indexing assists in the quantification of social impacts on major stakeholder groups where simple proxy measures cannot be effectively used. So the final stage of development indexing is usually coming up with a scorecard of from 0 to 100, where we assign weights to specific key result areas where there has been significant impact and we are able to quantify the performance. But in this study, we didn’t have enough time to actually do the scorecard, but we were able to establish the significant social impacts of the community-centered connectivity initiatives that we studied. We also used social return on investment, which is a measure of cost-effectiveness, because it’s a ratio of financial and social outcomes to inputs and investments. So for a project or a community connectivity initiative to be sustainable or to be cost-effective, its SROI, or the social return on investment, needs to be greater than one. So we studied four cases, two in Asia and two in Africa. And the two cases in Asia are Kasepuan Ciptagilar Community-Centered Connectivity Initiative in West Java, Indonesia, which served the Sundanese indigenous villages there. And I’d like to just recognize the main actor in this initiative, Common Room. I think Gustav, could you stand so that they’ll know you? And then the second case was Patardi Community-Centered Connectivity Initiative in Maharashtra, Western India, where 99% of the population are part of the Warli tribe. So these are both indigenous communities. The third case from Africa is Tandanet Community Network. And I’d like to recognize our Tandanet stakeholders here. Risper is here with us. They operate in an urban slum in Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya. And the fourth case was Senzeleni. Community Centred Connectivity Initiative, working in Mankwosi and Situhele rural villages in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Now, I think one of the more important findings that we had from this research is that community centred connectivity initiatives are not just ordinary enterprises, but they are social enterprises, meaning to say they’re social mission driven. As social enterprises, they actually offer three types of services. The first type of service is what we call transactional services. These are connectivity services accessed through financial or other form of agreed transaction in exchange for the service. These are services that even commercial ISPs offer. But the two other kinds of services are services that are not offered by ordinary ISPs, which are what we call social inclusion services, which are oriented towards addressing digital exclusion and meaningful connectivity or other factors behind the usage gap. They enable connectivity to assist the poor and marginalized to have better access to basic needs, to social and economic services. For example, in some of the communities that we studied, the internet services were being provided in a way that was also building the capability of the marginalized stakeholders to use the internet in an effective way to improve their quality of life. The third type of services is what we call transformational services. They’re oriented at enabling the poor and excluded to have the capability to become actors in their own development, to enable their capability to own, govern, and manage digital resources to positively impact on their lives and their communities. These are actually services that are provided to the organizations and leaders who provide the connectivity service in the community so that they’ll have the capability to govern, maintain, and sustain the delivery of the services. What we found is that the significant social impacts of community-centered connectivity initiatives have been mainly facilitated not by transactional services, but by social inclusion and transformational services. On the screen, you would see some examples so that it’s clearer to you. A transactional service would be, for example, the provision of internet service through vouchers that Kasipuan Chip Tagilar does. But social inclusion services would include digital literacy training, online publishing of curricula and training materials for the villagers. It would include podcasts, workshops, or local content development, and the development of a village culture through digital storytelling. These are some of the services that Kasipuan Chip Tagilar, as a community-centered connectivity initiative, actually provides the village. The transformational services included training and capacity building of technicians and locals to undertake monitoring, maintenance, and repair of internet tools and devices. Also, capacity building and support to set up and manage SIGA Sakula, or the media lab, which is actually the lab that creates local content for use by the communities. And then also capacity building for locals to manage and extend internet services to adjacent villages. So it’s not just the immediate village, but other villages as well. What is also very clear in the study is that the four cases showed that social inclusion and transformational services facilitated impacts that clearly demonstrate the value proposition for investing in community-centered connectivity initiatives as they relate to at least six. six key result areas. And we proved in the research, of course, we did the four cases and they’re actually available. We will be making them available online, apart from the integrative report that’s available already here in the publication. The first is increased levels and capacities for inclusive human development, the improvement in the economic position and conditions of community stakeholders, more effective preservation of the cultural identity, heritage, and integrity of the community, because three of the cases were actually in indigenous communities, increased levels and capacities for climate action and natural resources management, the empowerment of the community to control, govern, and manage internet and digital resources, as well as the inclusion and empowerment of women as stakeholders in digital transformation. Just to show you more clearly what these key result areas mean, and because of the lack of time, let me just show you what improvement in the economic position and conditions of community stakeholders look like for the cases in Asia. For Kasipuan Chiptagilar Community Centered Connectivity Initiative, this was expressed in terms of increasing assets, not only in terms of household assets, but the increase in financial resources to support the increase in the consumption or avoidance of over-borrowing. A second element of this key result area of improving the economic position and conditions of community stakeholders was increase in business transactions and new business enterprises. There was an increase in the trade or transactions of existing micro-entrepreneurs, as well as an increase in employment generation. A third was a greater sustainability of the agricultural sector that was expressed in terms of improved capability to use new adaptive farming techniques to climate change, integrating traditional practices with new technologies. It was also expressed in terms of greater intergenerational sustainability because the involvement of young farmers was actually facilitated. In India, with the Pathardi Community Centered Connectivity Initiative, improvement in the economic position and conditions of the community stakeholders was expressed in terms of financial empowerment of the tribal women who started generating their income as the sellers of the vouchers, and tribal women also started to open their bank accounts. Third was an expansion of markets online, which was manifested by the increased customer base and improved earnings of those who actually were selling online. The other finding, I think, that was very significant with the use of the social return on investment methodology, we were able to show that over a period of three to four years that the social return on investment ratio was above one for all of the community-centered connectivity initiatives. If you’ll notice from year one to year two to year three to year four, it is an increasing trend. That means that the cost effectiveness is actually what is being shown, and there’s an increase in the social value created over time. In conclusion, may I just say that the study that we did proved that community-centered connectivity initiatives provide social inclusion services and transformational services that generate significant social impacts beyond what commercial ISPs can offer. Secondly, social inclusion and transformational services facilitated impacts that clearly demonstrated the value proposition for investing in community-centered connectivity initiatives as they relate to the KRAs, the key result areas that I already explained to you earlier, and that the social return on investment ratios being all above one and their consistent upward trend every year demonstrates that there is an increase in the social value created by community-centered connectivity initiatives over time so that CCCIs are actually cost-effective in bridging the digital divide. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Maria-Liza, for this excellent presentation and also for sticking to the time. Actually, this provides very concrete evidence to what we have been arguing for some years about the positive externalities that community networks generate locally and how they not only decentralize connectivity but also create new wealth, not only in economic terms but also in other terms that are much more difficult to measure, which is the social impact. Excellent. Now, the next presentation will be by Claude Dorion, and he has an excellent chapter with co-authors, including also Carlos, on Breaking the Financial Divide of Digital Divide, which is a title I really like very much.

Claude Dorion: Yes, good afternoon to all. I’ve got a slide presentation that would support a 40-minute presentation. I’m going to try to be as succinct as possible. What we did was to make an analysis, a structural analysis of the financial needs of the community-oriented connectivity initiatives in relationship with the financing opportunities. And we did this through a survey where 85 different initiatives coming from three continents participated in our operation. So, it allowed us to have some crossover presentation of the different challenges that are encountered by the organization. On the first aspect, you have on this slide some quantitative demonstration of Lisa’s presentation where the connectivity initiatives themselves have the evaluation that they do have a clear social impact on their community. They allow people to increase their economic situation. They help to get access to social and health services. And they contribute as well to build a more integrated community where different services are available to all members. So, it’s like a macroeconomic demonstration of the single case studies that Lisa just presented. We believe that in some kind of way, the financial divide that we are observing in the access for financial solutions for connectivity initiatives are based in a fractious dialogue between external environment being the regulation, the territory where we have to develop the projects, the characteristic of the community, and the technology that has to be used efficiently to cover the services on one hand. On the other hand, you have the challenges coming from internal function and origin of the projects where we have, in most cases, a challenge of size and low density of the service which will bring average cost for user a little higher. And we always have, we encounter the constant hesitation between articulating the equilibrium between the social accessibility of the service and a sustainable pricing policy that will allow to offer the service on a long term basis. And there’s also a question of skills to be supported and enhanced being on the technical operation of the service and also on its marketing and management aspect. And the other element that represents a challenge for the initiatives is that they have some difficulty to demonstrate exactly their performance as an operator and their social impact as an actor of their community and that will bring constraints in their dialogue with the financial sector. With the financial sector, we see some relational gasp coming from the expectations as the return that we should expect from an investment on one side, but also on the documentation of the projects where we have to get a closer mutual understanding on how do we present a connectivity project to a financial actor and how the financial actor has to consider all kinds of impact in the way to assess the investment possibility. We also have the difficulty coming from the perception of the higher management cost of doing small financial operation and the perceived risk coming from the non-profit nature of those operations. We asked our sample of initiatives what were their main constraints in raising their project and developing their project and you see on this slide that they are multi-factored but there is a high density of participants that underline clearly that access to financial solution, fundraising, the cost of equipment, all financial related issues are among the main constraints that they are encountering. We also asked them for their different challenges and you see there again that the cost of the equipment is important, the cost of funding, difficulty to have access to some technical services as well are all issues that they have to overcome. Among the organization that we surveyed, we see all kinds of different financial situations on the level of covering the total cost coming from the operational revenues coming from the operations and you see here that there is just a minority of the initiatives surveyed that cover all the cost with their autonomous revenues and that this part of this rate of covering the cost is quite variable coming from zero up to a few minor minority cases where there is a full coverage of cost coming from the revenues and this will depend mostly on the social policy and the type of population that are covered by the service. Here, this is not a contemporary art try and failure, it’s a graphic demonstration of the very large diversity of solutions that are put forward by the initiatives as how do we split the revenues from private fees paid by the user, community financing, public grants, municipal or local government support and not only that there are different recipes but there is also a different mixture of those different sources that are used depending on the countries and the regions where the initiatives are active and this implies… I want to emphasize that with different size of operation and different level of autonomous revenues and different solution as blended source of revenues you will have to encounter different kind of financing in order to accompany those initiatives into keeping operating and developing their revenues. And one of the basic strategy for us is we really have to build on a mixture of financial products where impact will be mostly financed through grants. Equipment and assets will be mostly financed by loans and the working capital and the risk part of the operation should be at least partially financed by flexible refundable financial products. And that together those three kind of sources should be involved in each project because they are self-reinforcing. The strategy of sharing a project between debt equity and grant allows the grant part to reduce the risk perception by the refundable part of the financing and by consequence will help to reduce the interest rates that will be expected from the players. And the fact that bringing some debt part in the financing of the projects that are historically mainly depending on grants will allow the system to accompany more projects and to increase the volume of financing that may be available for each project. Right now as you see in this slide all the CCIs that we surveyed had more than one type of financing that was involved in their project. The red financing that you see are all refundable and the blue financing are all non-refundable and you see that international corporation being philanthropy or corporation development agencies are the main players that we most frequently see in those cases that we surveyed but they never are alone in financing a project. So in my last 40 seconds at least our main proposal and message is that there is a clear need and pertinence to bring a financial mechanism that will be blended finance in order to increase the volumes that are available for the connectivity. initiative that are led and made for communities and that that kind of project should allow to increase the size of the projects and even if it has to pay a certain part of interest on its financing it should allow to lower the cost per user with an economies of scale. So that was the main message with the importance of having a flexible answer that has to be adapted to each and every CCI that has to be supported.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much. Thank you very much Claude for highlighting, for providing us a good very good and detailed mapping and also starting to put forward what could be the solutions right which is the the direction towards we are starting to move especially with the next presentation by Nathalia Foditsch and Brian Vo. Sorry I forgot to mention that this will we will have also have Brian Vo in the picture so connected with us remotely. He is Chief Investment Officer of Connect Humanity and they are co-author of this excellent paper on building an impact investing market for community-centered connectivity. Please Nathalia the floor is yours. Hi everyone. I’m really happy to be here with you remotely. I wish I was there

Nathalia Foditsch: in person. So good to see many of you and this this study was commissioned by APC so I would like to thank APC and also all the community center and internet providers we have talked to. I know that some of them are I mean Lisa mentioned that Gustav is there in person and also our colleague from Tendernet. I see Saul online that used to be at Zanzaleni. So thank you everyone for providing valuable inputs and and helping us developing this study. So it’s a first cross-sectional analysis of community-centered internet providers in the global south through the lens of investability. So nine initiatives were assessed and and the initiatives were in South America, Africa and Asia. And as some colleagues have mentioned before this is more important than ever because well first of all I think I might be mistaken but I think it’s the first time we have a DT tree discussion at IGF focusing specifically on financing. So while this has been a need for a long time I’m glad to see that we are finally finally starting to add that to the agenda here too. And we have seen some major challenges over the past months right in regards to financing development. So I’m really glad we are talking about grand entrepreneurs as Chris has mentioned. And I would like to introduce my colleague Brian who is the Chief Investment Officer at Connect Humanity. And he, you know, is really an expert in this field. He has almost 20 years of investment and strategy experience. And he has a portfolio of projects he has been involved in of $7 billion. So he knows what he’s talking about, right? So he’s going to present the study. And we both will be here for questions later.

Brian Vo: Thanks, Nathalia. And thank you all for having us. I think it’s really been a joy to work with APC and also collaborate with Claude and MCE. And I think a lot of the aha moments that we had was really looking at it both from the supply side of the capital but also the demand side of the capital. And that was the part of the equation that we really focused on. So what did we do? As Nathalia mentioned, we analyzed nine different CCIs across the world. But why did we do that? What we wanted to add to the conversation was beyond some of the top-down evaluations of what does the market need, what do CCIs need. We wanted to look at it from a bottom-up nature to really start with the finish line of if we looked at these organizations as potential investments as an investor, how might we underwrite it? Would we do an investment as they are right now? If not, what might be some of the gaps that would be preventing us from doing an investment today? And so that really was the goal of it to say, let us purely look at this from an investment underwriting perspective. What might we be able to learn about the organizations and really the state of readiness? Because I know there’s a lot of conversation around investment readiness and investment ready. And so with that lens, with that mindset, we used our underwriting risk framework that we’ve used for all of our real investments, actual investments. And that’s centered around five major things. First is looking at the network technical design. How is the network designed? How is the organization thinking about construction, operation, engaging the community, getting subscribers, maintaining the network? staff build out, etc. Second one was around community engagement. How are they thinking about getting that right to play? How are they estimating actual demand? How are they thinking about pricing their products and services? That culminated in the third thing around business model. So these are all the parts of the equation, but how is the team then bringing it together to say, here really is our business plan, our projections, our expected financials, the gaps in the types of capital we might be needing. Fourth was then a portfolio impact. So we wanted to mimic it really from an investor perspective, where investors wouldn’t just look at an opportunity in isolation. I’m going to look at potentially investing in this organization and how the economics of that particular deal fit into my broader portfolio. Does it weight average my returns up or down? Does it weight average my collective risk up or down? And then the fifth one was around legal and compliance. Those were some of the more standard fare of like, do you have the right licenses, permits, audits, financial audits to date? So that’s what we did. Here is a snapshot of the organizations that we were able to engage. So as you can see, we were quite intentional in really trying to get that cross section from really representation across the global south. So what is it that we learned? The first one is demand is real. And I don’t think that’s going to be news to anybody online or in the room, but it was very, I think, inspiring to see how potent that demand really was and how the organizations, the CCIs were able to capture that, communicate that. With many of them, with a few years under operation, having take rates in the 30 to 50% range. So from an investment perspective, really great to see. I think here is also great to see a lot of innovation around the business model, how different CCIs might capture that demand in terms of some might have subscription types of products where others had vouchers. The second major thing that we learned was the technical capacity is very credible. The level of depth in how the CCIs spoke about the thoughtfulness of designing the network, different types of equipment that they were using, redundancy and resiliency to their network was really impressive. I think there was such a depth in the problem solving and the grasp of the technicalness of really connecting the unconnected. So really that technical expertise we saw really in spades. The third one then is growth is primarily blocked by structural barriers. And what are some of the structural barriers that we saw? First and foremost, is lack of access to capital. One of the primary things we’re talking about here, but it seemed to be more on the CAPEX side rather than the OPEX side. Most of the organizations we analyzed were financially sustainable in some way, at least on the operating side. And so it really was that CAPEX, that upfront infusion that they needed to either And this was definitely jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but anywhere from spectrum and licensing all the way through to eligibility for different subsidies. So, what now? The first one is we saw a huge opportunity to design better capital. Claude mentioned a few potential financing tools. I think when we look at broadband in particular and CCIs, it is just a different business model. It is a different type of business and organization that is not just infrastructure, but also not just community or civil society. So, the need to create a financing product that makes more sense for this type of business has been a big need. Part of that also is it seems like the ecosystem also needs to step away from just thinking about a single deal perspective and thinking about it as a portfolio perspective. While we looked at nine, some might be on the margins, invest or don’t invest, invest ready or not ready. But I would say the more that we are able to aggregate those underlying CCIs together, you are actually more able to spread the risk, the project risk, the connectivity risk, the financial risk across several CCIs. And that might be a better way to unlock capital at scale and deploy capital. Capital at Scale, Funding Technical Assistance. Now, earlier when I mentioned the technical understanding was really strong and deep. There was a variation, a pretty big variance in the understanding of business planning, business modeling, translating from, you know, grant-led organization to revenue and earned income led. So being able to pair that technical assistance with investment, either pre or post investment, we think is also important. Treat this as infrastructure investing and not charity. That was, I think, a critical thing, aha moment for us when we were engaging with some who, you know, started as brands and nonprofits, are trying to figure out what their pricing model is. But there’s this like jump that I could see folks trying to make, even within their organization and internal dialogues about, you know, how do we evolve the organization really into a sophisticated, financially sustainable operator, not just, you know, nonprofit. And then lastly, catalyzing the market. I think we can do this by aggregating a lot of the demand through things like facilities and funds, not just looking at it through deal-by-deal. I think a second one is really developing bespoke underwriting tools and benchmarks here. If you’re copying and pasting an underwriting algorithm from another industry, it’s just not going to work for broadband. Connectivity is just, particularly for CCIs, it’s the intersection of way too many things to fit into, you know, the box of all their underwriting. And then lastly, figuring out how to align philanthropy with investment capital, I would say, on that fund or portfolio basis. So those were our biggest learnings. Turn it over back to you.

Luca Belli: Thank you, Brian. This is really enlightening. I think, yeah, Natalia, you are right, this is the first time we have an analysis from investors that actually could be a guide for investors that want to chip into this, invest into these initiatives, or actually also a guide that community network leaders and associations can use to reverse engineer it and know what to pitch to investors, which is also quite useful. And then also, I think I speak on behalf of all the panelists here saying that, Brian, if you need to invest your seven billions, please contact us and we will give you a lot of tips. Now, to go on with our presentations, and I would like to ask the last presenters to stick to time so that we still have a good 10 minutes to discuss. Karl Elström from Sida, thank you very much for being with us online and for having also supported this work. Please, Karl, the floor is yours.

Carl Elmstam: Thank you very much. And thanks for having me. Sorry to not be there in person, especially since I’m in the neighboring country. But I had to stay in Stockholm, but very happy to be here. So it’s a little bit with a rising sense of worry that I’ve seen the other presentations because basically you’ve covered sort of all my main points. But I’ll try to mention some things anyways. I mean, I think this is super timely, considering how many donors are reducing or are getting reduced budgets. We even see, you know, major withdrawals from development in some cases. So timing is great for this. So my experience is mostly from Sida. I started working with APC, I think, back in 2018. But for the last few years, I’ve been at the European Commission, seconded from Sweden to the European Commission. And I think, Claude, you had a slide where you had sort of relational challenges or something like that, you know, working with private investors or even DFI investors. And sort of combining that with development cooperation or, you know, civil society culture kind of, I think that should not be underestimated, those challenges. It’s basically like we, it’s different languages, right? There is clearly a need for facilitation or even interpretation. So that’s sort of an important point from my perspective. And looking at sort of the more technical sides of the financing, I mean, I was, for the last year or so, I’ve been working on, I was working on setting up a fund. So this fund was more commercially driven. And I mean, let’s also, you know, remember and not forget the fact that the connectivity market in many places in Africa is going to grow a lot. So there should be room for different types of actors, different types of investments. So the fund that I was working on or sort of the fund idea and structure, it was similarly to this sort of based on, you know, looking at existing types of investments in connectivity, but really ranging from submarine cables to mobile networks or even data centers could be included in this work that I did. And there, I think Brian also mentioned something important because you have to have a portfolio perspective, for sure, to reduce risk, to spread risk. But there is also important to consider, you know, you have to spread it in the right way, because in the end, you’ll be sitting there with a group of people and a fund manager who are identifying the projects to invest in. And of course, they can’t be experts in all types of digital infrastructures across all continents, because, you know, that would require a huge team to do that in an efficient way. So I think striking the right balance and basically allowing more of those community networks. that are sort of likelier to have high revenues and somehow grade it in order to be able to finance the one with high risk, basically. And of course, it makes complete sense. I think, Claude, you put it very clearly in your presentation. I mean, it’s really about bringing together a multi-stakeholder group to do the investments. I mean, at the bottom, there should be grant funding, which is for technical assistance or, you know, the setting up costs of whatever financial function you’re building, right? And actors like SIDA, we can do guarantees. I mean, the European Commission can also do guarantees to lower the risk for other investors. And of course, these other investors could be, you know, organizations like the World Bank or the European Investment Bank, the national DFIs, which clearly, I mean, they would also be interested in the social return of investment, right? But I think it’s important to see them as different layers, because depending on how commercial or how commercially viable the projects end up being, or how big a portion you have of the more commercially viable projects, you might even have private investors on the top. And of course, in a layered investor structure, it’s probably, well, of course, the ones who are giving out the guarantees or the grants at the sort of bottom of the structure, they will always be the most likely to lose the money or to lose their investments in case of failures. And the risk goes lower and lower, the higher you get in this structure. And not very fairly, but I guess, logical in another way, when there are some return on the investments, the people on the top of this gets repaid first. So, that’s where you might be able to even attract private investors, with or without guarantees. So, I hope that might be helpful. I mean, I think that there are similar cases that could be used, or that could sort of guide this a bit. But yeah, basically, although, sorry, there was one other thing. I think there will also be sort of a relational issue when you try to combine ODA, Development Assistance Funding, the grants, with companies, just as simple as that, because then you’ll run into issues of the ODA grants should not be able to generate profits. I mean, revenues, okay, probably fine. But if it goes sort of into the profit area, it becomes much more difficult. So, there are quite some challenges around that. But other than that, I think relational challenges, spreading the risk, you know, allowing a bit more of commercial things to come in to sort of carry the less commercial ones. Those would be sort of my highlights. But thanks a lot, and super excited to see all of this work progressing so much. So, thank you.

Luca Belli: Fantastic. Thank you very much, Karl, particularly for respecting the time, and also for highlighting something that we have strived to emphasize over the past decade, that is the community network are really fantastic examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships. And we frequently speak about multi-stakeholder dialogues, but we also should analyze more how stakeholders can interact together to build things, right. All right. So, the last, but of course not least, word to Alessandra Lustrati from FCDO, that also has been instrumental for the organization of this work. Please, Alessandra, for yours.

Alessandra Lustrati: Thank you so much, Luca, and wonderful to be here. Thank you for having me. And I’m in even deeper trouble than Karl, because obviously all the great points have been made. So, I’ll try to maybe add a little bit from the perspective of FCDO, of course, and how fundamental we think that this piece of work is, and all this process, but also how it fits within our broader approach to supporting last-mile connectivity through community-based solutions, and in particular community networks. A shout-out to the presence of Common Room and Tuna Panda in the room, because I’ve been on the roof of Tuna Panda to actually see the TV space technology in 2019, I think, and all the… almost broke a leg. And I have seen the bamboo tower in Ciptagelar with Gustav. So I feel that everything that we’re discussing in this room today, that might sound a little bit theoretical, we talk about broad, you know, big concepts like SROI and how can we work on the underwriting, etc. It is actually something extremely concrete that has a direct impact on people’s lives. And I am extremely proud of the work that has been done by others. I mean, I have almost no merit in all of this, but I’m really glad that we are progressing in this field. Just to zoom out very quickly, the reason why I’m speaking here with you is because from FCDO we’ve been basically supporting Last Mile Connectivity for many years. We did this in various ways, but at some point we decided that really supporting the community networks and community-based solution to Last Mile Connectivity was like a foundational block of digital inclusion, which is a key pillar of our digital development strategy 2024-2030. But this is just a new strategy. Of course, we’ve been doing this for many years. And in particular, through the Digital Access Programme, we’ve been having now for over four years, I think, the collaboration with and the partnership with the APC. And of course, CIDA have been great supporters of that. So as you can see, multi-stakeholder approach, different type of institutional donors who actually maybe work in different ways, but complement each other. Obviously, the social enterprises, the community networks, the experts in finance, obviously great NGOs like APC and ISOC as a fundamental actor in all of this. And of course, you know, the sort of academic and also research expertise, all of this has to come together to progress. We’ve been working on supporting digital inclusion, in particular, Last Mile Connectivity models, always working at two parallel levels. One is the level of policy, regulatory frameworks, standards and spectrum management. And we are committed as the UK to continue working on that so that we can create a better business environment actually for social enterprises and community networks for Last Mile Connectivity. And the other level is more like actually in the community and in the market, basically testing those technology and business models that make sense at the local level, that have to be very diverse, as Claude was saying, and that can become sustainable if we work, obviously, on the appropriate forms of access to finance. And this is also a topic that is very close to my heart because I have a background in SME finance in the olden days and digital financial inclusion. So I feel that, you know, it’s all coming together. Maybe I will just mention, given that we want to have at least a few minutes for the questions, of course, I’ll just mention maybe the points that have struck me the most in all the presentation. So the fact that we’ve managed now to really embed in our narrative the concept of social enterprise and SROI, as Liz explained. The fact that we think now differently about community networks and their investibility, although recognizing that we need a blended finance approach where we can’t expect the community networks to suddenly become from one day to the next. to the other fully viable for, for instance, private commercial investors. So the importance of starting from the grant side, but blending it directly with different type of finance. It would be interesting to do more in the future to understand the interaction of debt and equity in this. And I know that there are different schools of thought on what would be viable. And we’ve talked about the underwriting and how to actually analyze, you know, what are the different features of the community networks, even in different contexts. So seeing that the demand is really is real, that there is very deep tech capability. And of course, the work of APC and others partners in doing like the School of Community Networks, building local leadership, local technical capability, being able to do operational maintenance of community networks means that you have a really robust sort of entity that you can invest in. But there are the barriers. And I think I think Brian, if I’m not wrong, explained that really well in terms of both access to finance, but also the business capability of even just at the very basic level, not designing just a budget for a grant, but actually designing a proper budget and a focus for your business and proper accounts. And, you know, so growing the business capability also of community networks. So it’s the kind of demand side rather than just the supply side of which type of sources of finance and investment we can think of. The importance of aggregating and using scale to sort of distribute and spread risk, but also reach that critical mass that can reduce also the administrative costs and make everything more attractive for investors. And then maybe I’ll just come to the last point, that is, as the UK, we want to continue to be committed to add value where we can, because in through the digital access programme, what we can do with the type of finance that we have in that programme and in our digital development portfolio. And Karl made a really important point there about the use of ODD and how you can commingle it or not with other type of funds. We can continue to support things like technical assistance, capacity building, the broad business environment and, of course, reducing some of the costs of maybe the underwriting for the individual investment.

Audience: with night and one of the items I would like to highlight is the structure of community networks by the nature of the licenses that they have. They are supposed to be very much integrated into communities including ownership such that when you have to seek funding from investors and they look at your business model they see a lot of risks because we are looking more at social return on investment as opposed to you know the profits themselves. If you look at the area where we work, where people find it very difficult to pay ten dollars in a month then you need very large numbers to be able to break even. Some of us have actually had to pump personal resources. community networks to have them work because when we we try to seek funding we virtually not have at any one donor even give in excess of 15,000 dollars. When you look at the network equipment that are required to expand the network to serve a large area you realize that you need a lot of you know um amount to be spent on equipment especially around the CAPEX and OPEX so most of these community networks are relying much more on volunteers and other initiatives and I think it’s a high time that governments and donors look at them as social good and continue to pump money you know just like they do in health and education in order to have many people you know enjoy the benefits of digital opportunities. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much for this very important statement. Do we have so I think now Carlos has energy so we can

Carlos Rey Moreno: sorry sorry about that um there is a question or there was a question in the chat I don’t see the person who asked it anymore maybe he left but is what is the relationship between connectivity availability and energy availability and perhaps also other humanitarian uses for any available energy and I don’t know if maybe in the context of climate finance and some other things that we are talking about whether any of the panelists or the the the also the research from from Lisa on the on the KRA around green and environmental impact whether there is any reflection there that you would like to share and highlight. Thank you.

Luca Belli: I see that Chris already has a reply for our 1 billion dollar question so please Chris go ahead.

Chris Locke: Just very quickly from the community networks that we work with when we talk to them about the extra development and capacity training that they want power comes up as one of the most common things and not just from the perspective of wanting to move to greener solutions from power but also, and we know this was the case, and I visited it recently in Tandernet, where surges in power cause outages. So power management, moving to greener solutions and being able to secure power in a way that allows a network to grow is probably the most requested thing we have as a training topic after the basics of networking and managing it as a business.

Marie Lisa Dacanay: From the experience of community networks we’ve studied, I think because we’re working with underserved and far-flung communities, they usually need power in the form of renewable energy because they don’t have access to the grid. So I think investments in green energy is very important side by side with investments for community connectivity initiatives. But maybe some of the community networks that are working on this, like Gustaf, you might want to come into the discussion about the relationship between energy and demand for energy and also connectivity.

Luca Belli: If you want to do so, you have one minute and eight seconds.

Audience: Well, thank you for the opportunity. In terms of energy supply, most of our project sites that we are working with, they are almost non-energy or electric supply. So we have to, like in Ciptagelar, we use micro-hydro power supply and the community are already running the micro-hydro power plant for quite some time and they are very skillful for that. So there are strong connections between green energy supply with community-centered connectivity. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Fantastic. As we only have 31 seconds left, I think this is time to wrap up and I would like to thank everyone. Also, I would also like to remember that on our site, comconnectivity.org, there are also our previous reports and one of them was also dedicated to exploring some of the issues on sustainability, but from a more environmental perspective. Some years ago, we have done a lot of work. So if you are into this topic, please go there and download as much as you want, because it’s free. And I would like to thank very much all the participants and all the speakers and particularly our friend Carlos. And if she can hear us online, our friend Senka Azic. And thank you very much for the great discussions. See you next year. Thank you.

Agreement points

Community networks require blended finance approaches combining grants, loans, and flexible financing

Speakers

– Claude Dorion
– Carl Elmstam
– Brian Vo
– Alessandra Lustrati

Arguments

Impact should be financed through grants, equipment through loans, and working capital through flexible refundable products

Multi-layered investor structure with grants/guarantees at bottom, DFIs in middle, and potentially private investors at top

The ecosystem needs portfolio perspective rather than single deal approach to spread risk effectively

Development finance should focus on creating better business environment for social enterprises and community networks

Summary

All speakers agree that community networks cannot rely on single funding sources and require sophisticated blended finance structures that combine different types of capital (grants, debt, equity) with appropriate risk distribution across multiple layers of investors.

Topics

Development | Economic

Community networks demonstrate real demand and technical capability but face structural barriers to growth

Speakers

– Brian Vo
– Claude Dorion
– Chris Locke

Arguments

Demand for connectivity is real with many networks achieving 30-50% take rates, and technical capacity is credible

Access to financial solutions, fundraising, and equipment costs are among the main constraints encountered by community connectivity initiatives

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Summary

Speakers consistently recognize that community networks have proven market demand and strong technical expertise, but are held back by structural barriers, particularly around financing and business development capabilities.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Portfolio approach is essential for risk management and scaling community network investments

Speakers

– Brian Vo
– Carl Elmstam
– Claude Dorion

Arguments

The ecosystem needs portfolio perspective rather than single deal approach to spread risk effectively

Portfolio approach enables aggregation of CCIs to spread risk and unlock capital at scale

Blended finance allows grant funding to reduce risk perception and lower interest rates for refundable financing

Summary

All speakers emphasize that individual community network investments are too risky and small-scale, requiring portfolio approaches that aggregate multiple projects to spread risk and achieve economies of scale.

Topics

Development | Economic

Energy infrastructure is critical for community network sustainability and operations

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Audience

Arguments

Power management and renewable energy access are critical infrastructure needs alongside connectivity

Community networks in underserved areas often require renewable energy solutions due to lack of grid access

Energy supply challenges directly impact network reliability and growth potential

Summary

There is clear consensus that energy infrastructure, particularly renewable energy solutions, is fundamental to community network operations and sustainability, especially in underserved areas without grid access.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that community networks are fundamentally different from commercial ISPs because they create broader social value and positive externalities that extend far beyond simple connectivity provision.

Speakers

– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Community networks provide three types of services: transactional, social inclusion, and transformational services that generate significant social impacts beyond commercial ISPs

Community networks create positive externalities locally, decentralizing connectivity while generating new wealth in economic and social terms

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that while community networks have strong technical capabilities, they need significant support in developing business and commercial skills to transition from grant-dependent organizations to sustainable enterprises.

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Brian Vo

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Investment readiness requires developing business planning capabilities beyond technical expertise

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches that combine policy/regulatory work with practical implementation, viewing community networks as concrete examples of effective collaboration.

Speakers

– Alessandra Lustrati
– Luca Belli

Arguments

FCDO supports last-mile connectivity through policy/regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing

Community networks serve as examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships that build concrete solutions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Evidence-based approach to community network research and investment analysis

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Brian Vo
– Nathalia Foditsch

Arguments

The report provides evidence-based analysis rather than opinions, backed by thoroughly researched papers

Social return on investment ratios above one demonstrate cost-effectiveness and increasing social value creation over time

Demand for connectivity is real with many networks achieving 30-50% take rates, and technical capacity is credible

Cross-sectional analysis of nine CCIs provides first investability assessment from investor perspective

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there is strong consensus on applying rigorous, quantitative research methodologies typically used in commercial investment analysis to community networks. This represents a significant shift from purely advocacy-based approaches to evidence-based investment cases.

Topics

Development | Economic

Recognition of community networks as legitimate investment opportunities rather than just social projects

Speakers

– Brian Vo
– Claude Dorion
– Carl Elmstam
– Chris Locke

Arguments

Growth is primarily blocked by structural barriers including lack of access to capital, particularly CAPEX rather than OPEX

Most initiatives cannot cover all costs with autonomous revenues and require blended financing approaches

Multi-layered investor structure with grants/guarantees at bottom, DFIs in middle, and potentially private investors at top

Internet Society commits $30 million over four years with Meta partnership to support early-stage community connectivity

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus among both development finance professionals and investors that community networks should be treated as legitimate infrastructure investments requiring sophisticated financial instruments, rather than simple charitable projects.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals remarkably strong consensus across all speakers on key issues: the need for blended finance approaches, the importance of portfolio-based risk management, the critical role of energy infrastructure, and the recognition of community networks as legitimate investment opportunities with proven social and economic returns. There is also agreement on the structural barriers facing community networks and the need for evidence-based approaches to demonstrate their value proposition.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the field has matured significantly, moving from advocacy-based arguments to evidence-based investment cases. The implications are positive for advancing community network financing, as the unified perspective from diverse stakeholders (academics, investors, development finance institutions, implementers) provides a solid foundation for developing coordinated financing mechanisms and policy frameworks.

Different viewpoints

Approach to sustainability – grants vs commercial viability

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Audience

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Community networks rely heavily on volunteers and personal resources due to limited donor funding (typically under $15,000)

Summary

Chris Locke advocates for transitioning community networks from grant dependency to commercial sustainability through training, while the audience member argues that the nature of community networks requires continued grant support as social goods, similar to health and education funding

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Role of grants in long-term sustainability

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Audience

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Community networks rely heavily on volunteers and personal resources due to limited donor funding (typically under $15,000)

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocates for community networks, yet they have fundamentally different views on whether these networks should transition away from grants or continue to be supported as social goods. This reflects a deeper philosophical divide about the nature and purpose of community networks

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. The main area of disagreement centered on the long-term sustainability model for community networks – whether they should transition to commercial viability or remain grant-supported social goods

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agreed on fundamental issues like the need for blended finance, the importance of community networks, and the challenges they face. Disagreements were primarily about implementation approaches rather than core objectives, suggesting a mature field with established consensus on key principles but ongoing debate about optimal execution strategies

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that community networks are fundamentally different from commercial ISPs because they create broader social value and positive externalities that extend far beyond simple connectivity provision.

Speakers

– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Community networks provide three types of services: transactional, social inclusion, and transformational services that generate significant social impacts beyond commercial ISPs

Community networks create positive externalities locally, decentralizing connectivity while generating new wealth in economic and social terms

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that while community networks have strong technical capabilities, they need significant support in developing business and commercial skills to transition from grant-dependent organizations to sustainable enterprises.

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Brian Vo

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Investment readiness requires developing business planning capabilities beyond technical expertise

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches that combine policy/regulatory work with practical implementation, viewing community networks as concrete examples of effective collaboration.

Speakers

– Alessandra Lustrati
– Luca Belli

Arguments

FCDO supports last-mile connectivity through policy/regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing

Community networks serve as examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships that build concrete solutions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Community networks function as social enterprises providing three types of services (transactional, social inclusion, and transformational) that generate significant social impacts beyond what commercial ISPs offer

Social return on investment (SROI) ratios above 1.0 demonstrate that community networks are cost-effective and create increasing social value over time

Community networks face a ‘financial divide’ where access to capital, particularly CAPEX funding, is the primary barrier to growth rather than operational sustainability

Blended finance approaches are essential, combining grants for impact, loans for equipment, and flexible refundable products for working capital

Investment readiness requires developing business planning capabilities beyond technical expertise, with a need to transition from ‘grantrepreneurs’ to sustainable businesses

Portfolio approaches that aggregate multiple community networks can spread risk and unlock capital at scale more effectively than single-deal investments

Multi-stakeholder partnerships involving donors, DFIs, private investors, and community organizations are necessary for sustainable financing solutions

Power management and renewable energy access are critical infrastructure needs that must be addressed alongside connectivity solutions

Resolutions and action items

Internet Society commits $30 million over four years through their co-fund with Meta partnership to support early-stage community connectivity

FCDO will continue supporting last-mile connectivity through both policy/regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing

Development of bespoke underwriting tools and benchmarks specifically designed for community networks rather than copying from other industries

Creation of technical assistance programs paired with investment to build business planning capabilities in community networks

Establishment of facilities and funds that can aggregate demand and provide portfolio-based financing rather than deal-by-deal approaches

Unresolved issues

How to effectively combine ODA (Official Development Assistance) funding with commercial investments without violating profit generation restrictions

Specific mechanisms for addressing the relationship between connectivity and energy availability, particularly in climate finance contexts

How to scale beyond typical donor funding limits (often under $15,000) to meet actual CAPEX requirements for network expansion

Balancing social accessibility of services with sustainable pricing policies for long-term viability

Developing standardized methods for community networks to demonstrate performance and social impact to financial sector

Creating appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks that support community network licensing and spectrum access across different jurisdictions

Suggested compromises

Multi-layered investor structure where grants/guarantees provide foundation, DFIs occupy middle layer, and private investors participate at top with lowest risk

Blended finance models where grant funding reduces risk perception to enable lower interest rates on refundable financing components

Portfolio approach that includes more commercially viable projects to cross-subsidize higher-risk community networks serving marginalized populations

Treating community networks as infrastructure investments rather than charity while maintaining social mission focus

Flexible financing products adapted to each community network’s specific context rather than one-size-fits-all solutions

Combining technical assistance with investment capital to address both funding and capacity building needs simultaneously

Often we create grantrepreneurs not entrepreneurs. We create organizations that are very good at moving from grant to grant and as donors and as organizations I think we train people to be good at getting grants from donors. It’s a very different skill to then transition into being a commercial business and being a sustainable business.

Speaker

Chris Locke

Reason

This comment introduces a critical paradox in development funding – that well-intentioned grant programs may inadvertently create dependency rather than sustainability. It challenges the fundamental assumption that grants naturally lead to self-sufficiency and highlights a systemic issue in how development organizations operate.

Impact

This observation reframed the entire discussion around sustainability, moving it beyond just finding more funding sources to questioning how funding mechanisms themselves shape organizational behavior. It set up the need for the blended finance solutions that subsequent speakers would elaborate on, and established the tension between social mission and commercial viability that ran throughout the session.

Community-centered connectivity initiatives are not just ordinary enterprises, but they are social enterprises… they actually offer three types of services: transactional services, social inclusion services, and transformational services.

Speaker

Marie Lisa Dacanay

Reason

This comment fundamentally redefines how community networks should be understood and evaluated. By categorizing their services into three distinct types, it provides a framework for understanding why traditional ISP metrics and investment criteria don’t apply, and why these initiatives generate value that commercial providers cannot.

Impact

This categorization became the foundation for understanding the unique value proposition of community networks throughout the rest of the discussion. It provided the theoretical framework that justified the social return on investment methodology and helped explain why traditional financing approaches are inadequate. Other speakers referenced this distinction when discussing investment criteria and policy recommendations.

We wanted to look at it from a bottom-up nature to really start with the finish line of if we looked at these organizations as potential investments as an investor, how might we underwrite it? Would we do an investment as they are right now? If not, what might be some of the gaps?

Speaker

Brian Vo

Reason

This comment represents a methodological breakthrough – applying actual investment underwriting criteria to community networks rather than theoretical assessments. It bridges the gap between the development sector’s perspective and the investment community’s requirements, providing practical insights rather than aspirational recommendations.

Impact

This approach shifted the discussion from advocacy to practical implementation. It provided concrete evidence that demand is real and technical capacity exists, while identifying specific barriers like business planning skills. This investor’s perspective validated the sector’s potential while highlighting actionable gaps, influencing how other speakers framed their recommendations around investment readiness and blended finance structures.

There is a clear need and pertinence to bring a financial mechanism that will be blended finance in order to increase the volumes that are available for the connectivity initiative… that kind of project should allow to increase the size of the projects and even if it has to pay a certain part of interest on its financing it should allow to lower the cost per user with economies of scale.

Speaker

Claude Dorion

Reason

This comment synthesizes the structural analysis of financing needs with a concrete solution pathway. It moves beyond identifying problems to proposing a specific financial architecture that addresses the unique characteristics of community networks while achieving scale efficiencies.

Impact

This proposal provided a concrete framework that subsequent speakers could build upon. Karl Elmström elaborated on the layered investment structure, and Alessandra Lustrati connected it to policy implications. It shifted the conversation from ‘whether’ blended finance could work to ‘how’ it should be structured, making the discussion more actionable and policy-relevant.

Most of these community networks are relying much more on volunteers and other initiatives and I think it’s a high time that governments and donors look at them as social good and continue to pump money you know just like they do in health and education in order to have many people you know enjoy the benefits of digital opportunities.

Speaker

Audience member (Tandanet representative)

Reason

This comment from a practitioner challenges the entire premise of moving toward commercial sustainability, arguing instead for treating connectivity as a public good requiring ongoing subsidy. It introduces tension between the academic/policy discussion and ground-level reality, highlighting the gap between theoretical models and operational challenges.

Impact

This intervention brought the discussion back to ground-level realities and challenged some of the assumptions about commercial viability. It highlighted the tension between social mission and financial sustainability that runs through community network operations, and reinforced the need for the blended finance approaches being discussed rather than purely commercial solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing critical frameworks and tensions that defined the entire session. Chris Locke’s ‘grantrepreneur’ observation set up the central challenge, while Marie Lisa Dacanay’s service categorization provided the theoretical foundation for understanding community networks’ unique value. Brian Vo’s investor perspective validated the sector’s potential while identifying practical gaps, and Claude Dorion’s blended finance proposal offered a concrete solution pathway. The practitioner’s intervention grounded the discussion in operational reality. Together, these comments moved the conversation from advocacy to analysis to actionable recommendations, creating a comprehensive examination of both the challenges and opportunities in financing community connectivity. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions to acknowledging implementation complexities, ultimately producing a nuanced understanding of how to bridge the financial divide in digital inclusion.

How to better understand the interaction of debt and equity in community network financing

Speaker

Alessandra Lustrati

Explanation

She mentioned there are different schools of thought on what would be viable regarding debt and equity structures for community networks, indicating this needs further exploration

What is the relationship between connectivity availability and energy availability, and potential humanitarian uses for available energy

Speaker

Anonymous participant (via chat)

Explanation

This question explores the intersection of connectivity infrastructure with energy infrastructure and potential climate finance opportunities

How to develop bespoke underwriting tools and benchmarks specifically for community networks

Speaker

Brian Vo

Explanation

He emphasized that copying underwriting algorithms from other industries won’t work for broadband connectivity, particularly for CCIs, requiring specialized tools

How to better align philanthropy with investment capital on a fund or portfolio basis

Speaker

Brian Vo

Explanation

This addresses the structural challenge of combining different types of funding sources effectively

How to address the relational challenges and language barriers between development cooperation/civil society culture and private investors

Speaker

Carl Elmstam

Explanation

He noted these challenges should not be underestimated and require facilitation or interpretation between different stakeholder groups

How to resolve ODA (Official Development Assistance) compliance issues when grants are combined with profit-generating activities

Speaker

Carl Elmstam

Explanation

He highlighted that ODA grants should not generate profits, creating complications when combining with commercial investments

How to address the structural challenge of community network ownership models and their impact on investor perception

Speaker

Audience member (Tandanet representative)

Explanation

Community networks are integrated into communities with shared ownership, which investors may perceive as risky due to focus on social return rather than profits

How to scale funding beyond the typical $15,000 donor limit to meet actual CAPEX and OPEX requirements

Speaker

Audience member (Tandanet representative)

Explanation

Current funding levels are insufficient for the network equipment required to expand and serve larger areas effectively

How to better integrate green energy investments with community connectivity initiatives

Speaker

Marie Lisa Dacanay

Explanation

She noted that underserved communities usually need renewable energy alongside connectivity, suggesting need for coordinated investment approaches