TOWARDS DIGITAL

INCLUSION IN RURAL
TRANSFORMATION
 TOWARDS DIGITAL
INCLUSION IN RURAL
TRANSFORMATION
Kevin Hernandez & Justin Flynn
Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex

Jun He & Huda Alsahi

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, 2024
Required citation:
Hernandez, K., Flynn, J., He, J. and Alsahi, H. 2024.
Towards digital inclusion in rural transformation. Rome, FAO
[Link]

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information

product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal
or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific
companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented,
does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference
to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-138604-0
© FAO, 2024

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO;
[Link]
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted
for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any
use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific
organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the
work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative
Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following
disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible
for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall
be the authoritative edition.”
Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by
mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise
provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the
World Intellectual Property Organization [Link]
rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules
of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed
to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining
whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the
copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-
owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO
website ([Link]/publications) and can be purchased through publications-
sales@[Link]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: [Link].
org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be
submitted to: copyright@[Link].

Cover photograph: ©FAO/Alessandra Benedetti

 CONTENTS

FOREWORD vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

ABBREVIATIONS ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

INTRODUCTION  1
1D
 IGITALIZATION ACROSS SECTORS
IN RURAL AREAS  9
1.1 Digitalization of agrifood systems������������������������������������������������������������ 11

1.2 Digitalization of government services and social

protection systems����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20

1.3 Digitalization of education����������������������������������������������������������������������� 29

2T
 HE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN RURAL
CONTEXTS AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS  33
2.1 Gaps in access to digital technology����������������������������������������������������� 36

2.2 Going beyond binaries������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 49

2.3 Structural inequalities and root causes of digital inequalities��������� 67

3W
 AYS FORWARD: BEST PRACTICES TO
IMPROVE DIGITAL INCLUSION  79
3.1 Gender and marginalized group responsive digitalization���������������� 80

3.2 Providing offline participation opportunities�������������������������������������� 84

3.3 Addressing digital divides����������������������������������������������������������������������� 87

4C
 ONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS  93
4.1 Mapping the digital inclusion landscape����������������������������������������������� 94

4.2 Develop a normative framework, guidelines, and surveys

on digital inclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95

4.3 Adopt a gender and marginalized group-responsive approach������ 97

4.4 Ensure offline participation opportunities for rural populations����� 97

4.5 Promote access to digital technology and address

after-access barriers�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 99

4.6 Reducing the structural inequalities that lead to digital divides���� 100

REFERENCES 103

iii
 Tables
TABLE 1 Goals, targets and indicators related to digital access in
the SDGs framework������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2

TABLE 2 E-Government Development Index scores by income group������ 21

TABLE 3 Countries offering services related to COVID-19 in 2022������������ 22

TABLE 4 Mobile money account ownership gaps entire country

vs rural areas������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41

TABLE 5 Population covered by a mobile signal (at least 2G) in 2021

disaggregated by type of region��������������������������������������������������� 42

TABLE 6 International Telecommunication Union categorization of

basic, standard and advanced digital skills���������������������������������� 57

Figures
FIGURE 1 The three factors that lead to digital exclusion when combined��� 4

FIGURE 2 Ways to improve digital inclusion���������������������������������������������������� 6

FIGURE 3 Number of digital agriculture solutions implemented per

region (lower middle-income countries only) ������������������������������� 15

FIGURE 4 User percentage of digital agriculture solutions by group

and region (lower middle-income countries only) ����������������������� 15

FIGURE 5 Number of digital agriculture solutions launched by

type of emerging technology (lower-income and lower
middle‑income countries only) (n = 946)��������������������������������������� 18

FIGURE 6 The three factors that lead to digital exclusion when combined ��� 34

FIGURE 7 The three levels of the digital divide��������������������������������������������� 35

FIGURE 8 Percentage of individuals using the internet at least once

in the last three months, by urban–rural area in each
geographic region in 2020������������������������������������������������������������� 37

FIGURE 9 Percentage of individuals using the internet, by urban–rural

area in each geographic region in 2020��������������������������������������� 37

FIGURE 10 Binary access gap between the poorest and richest

20 percent across country income groups���������������������������������� 39

FIGURE 11 Percentage of individuals owning a mobile phone���������������������� 40

FIGURE 12 Price of an entry-level internet-enabled device

(might not be a smartphone) in 2021 as a percentage of
GDP per capita by income distribution����������������������������������������� 43

FIGURE 13 Price of an entry-level internet-enabled device

(might not be smartphone) in 2021 as a percentage of
GDP per capita by sex�������������������������������������������������������������������� 44

FIGURE 14 Price of 1 GB of data in 2021 as a percentage of

GDP per capita by sex and income������������������������������������������������ 44

FIGURE 15 Average price of 5 GB of data as a percentage of

GDP per capita (further disaggregation not made available)������ 45

FIGURE 16 Average connectivity index score for local relevance and

availability of content in local languages 2021 ���������������������������� 46

iv
 FIGURE 17 Percentage of people who lack identification
experiencing difficulties accessing rights, services and
opportunities in 2021���������������������������������������������������������������������� 47

FIGURE 18 Groups less likely to have identification documents in

low‑coverage countries (percent less likely than the rest
of population, 2021)������������������������������������������������������������������������ 48

FIGURE 19 Mobile money users in Kenya by type of access, 2016 ��������������� 51

FIGURE 20 Over-the-counter mobile money users by key

demographics in Kenya, 2016��������������������������������������������������������� 51

FIGURE 21 Coverage of second-, third- and fourth-generation mobile

infrastructure across development status ���������������������������������� 53

FIGURE 22 Percentage of people with access to personal computers

and smartphones vs only a smartphone or personal
computer across 34 sub-Saharan African countries
disaggregated by geography��������������������������������������������������������� 62

FIGURE A ITU internet user metric vs Alliance for Affordable Internet

(BOX 6)
meaningful connectivity in nine low-income and lower
middle-income countries in 2021�������������������������������������������������� 65

FIGURE B Meaningful connectivity in rural vs urban areas in nine

(BOX 6)
low‑income and lower middle-income countries ����������������������� 66

FIGURE C Meaningful connectivity women vs men in nine low-income

(BOX 6)
and lower middle-income countries in 2021 ������������������������������� 66

FIGURE 23 Ways to improve digital inclusion �������������������������������������������������� 79

Boxes
BOX 1 Digitalizing the milk supply chain in Kazakhstan�������������������������� 12

BOX 2 [Link] acts as an online agricultural

business incubator for rural Guatemalan youth��������������������������� 13

BOX 3 Farmer registry in Lebanon supported by FAO���������������������������� 24

BOX 4 Financial inclusion through digital cash payments:

FAO’s Green Jobs for Rural Youth Employment��������������������������� 28

BOX 5 AYA platform offers youth smallholders networking

opportunities and training on how to leverage social media������� 31

BOX 6 A4AI’s Meaningful Connectivity Index������������������������������������������ 64

BOX 7 The United Nation’s framework on universal

and meaningful connectivity��������������������������������������������������������� 67

BOX 8 Fostering the development of national digital agriculture

strategies throughout Europe and Central Asia��������������������������� 75

BOX 9 FAO 1000 Digital Villages Initiative������������������������������������������������ 80

BOX 10 Gamification for digital learning: Preventing child labour

and fostering safe work for youth in Lebanese agriculture�������� 82

BOX 11 Talking Books provide an innovative solution to reach

rural communities in Uganda��������������������������������������������������������� 83

BOX 12 Success story from Egypt on inclusive digital training��������������� 89

BOX 13 FAO supported digital-skills development in Albania,

Georgia and the Republic of Moldova������������������������������������������� 90

v
Kazakhstan
Milk procurement managers using a
smart photo mobile phone application
developed by FAO.
©FAO/Marco Palombi
 FOREWORD

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES HOLD Nevertheless, the United Nations and its specialized
IMMENSE POTENTIAL to contribute to inclusive rural agencies, international organizations, research
transformations and to accelerate progress for the institutions, and, more broadly, the private sector
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Enhancing (especially those engaged in providing digital and
access to these technologies is crucial for advancing information technology services) are making significant
progress towards SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero efforts to promote digital inclusion. As emphasized
Hunger), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Yet, the in the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital
rapid march of digitalization raises pertinent questions. Cooperation and its accompanying documents, digital
Will these advancements genuinely promote inclusion is defined as “equitable, meaningful, and safe
inclusivity and benefit marginalized or vulnerable access to use, lead and design of digital technologies,
groups? Or will these advancements exacerbate the services, and associated opportunities for everyone,
digital divide, further isolating the rural poor, women, everywhere (UN, 2020).”
young people, persons with disabilities, Indigenous
Peoples, older persons, migrants, displaced people, However, promoting digital inclusion and addressing
and community/local organizations in rural areas and digital exclusion requires a gradual and ongoing
agrifood systems? process, and a one-size-fits-all model is not
universally feasible. International organizations,
Rural populations were at risk of digital exclusion even including FAO, must consistently prioritize inclusivity
before the COVID-19 pandemic which accelerated in the technology models they promote or the
the trend of service digitalization, further diminishing work they undertake. This involves broadening the
offline alternatives and perpetuating existing digital understanding of digital inclusion and the digital
divides. Digital agricultural applications, social divide, offering training and capacity development on
media platforms for marketing, seamless access digital inclusion, conducting analytical and normative
to government services, and remote learning are work to identify and address potential exclusion, and
examples of sectors that are becoming increasingly customizing appropriate technologies and interfaces.
digitalized but are less accessible to rural residents,
marginalized groups, and underserved populations Only through such measures can we genuinely
due to limited access to internet-enabled devices, embrace the digital era and harness digital
internet connectivity and offline service centres. While technologies to positively contribute to the 2030
digital inclusion is crucial for fostering inclusive digital Agenda, all while minimizing the exacerbation of
transformations that enhance agrifood systems and inequalities and the deepening of the digital divide
sustainable rural livelihoods, digitalization alone does resulting from digitalization, which is essential to truly
not ensure inclusion. achieve the aspiration of leaving no one behind.

Benjamin Davis
ESP Director

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

THE TECHNICAL REPORT OF Towards Special gratitude to all of the reviewers involved
digital inclusion in rural transformation was prepared for their time and persistent efforts, including:
by Kevin Hernandez and Justin Flynn from the Institute FAO colleagues Lauren Phillips and Nimra Azhar
of Development Studies (IDS) at the University of (ESP), Gerard Sylvester (CFI), Nikola Trendov (OIN),
Sussex in collaboration with the Digitalization Thematic Stuart Tippins (CSI), Adel Zekaizak (FAORNE), Ken
Taskforce (DTT) led by Jun He and Huda Alsahi from Lohento (FAORAF), Luiz Beduschi, Catalina Ivanovic,
the Rural Transformation and Gender Equality Division Eduardo Ramirez, Mauricio Mireles and Claudia Brito
(ESP) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the (FAORLC), Daniela DiGianantonio (FAOREU), Melle Tiel
United Nations (FAO), under the overall guidance of Groenestege, Matthew Shanahan and Isabelle Carboni
Lauren Phillips and Benjamin Davis. from the Global System for Mobile Communications
Association (GSMA) and Becky Faith from IDS.
Many thanks to all the members of the DTT, in particular,
to Marzia Pafumi for her proactive participation and Thanks to Viviana Di Bari, Melina Archer and Hebah Abu
significant contributions in drafting the outline, and to Afifeh from ESP for their assistance during the report
Vladimir Evtimov, SeongYoung Lee, Maria Paola Rizzo, publishing and communication process. Thanks to
Marie-Lara Hubert-Chartier, Marwan Benali, Sarah Paul Neate and Sylvie Baumgartel for their assistance
Brand, Qiushi Yue, Xiaoxiao Wang, Alexis Pellier, for with editing the report. Many thanks to Andrea Wöhr
their insightful review, as well as the technical support for the design and layout of the report.
provided throughout the entire study process.
We hope this report will be a valuable reference for
future research and practical projects aiming to utilize
digital technology for rural transformation, improved
digital inclusivity and more significant benefits to rural
communities.

viii
 ABBREVIATIONS

A4AI Alliance for Affordable Internet

ASAN Azerbaijan Service and Assessment Network
AYA African Youth Entrepreneurs
CBO community-based organization
DVI 1000 Digital Villages Initiative
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EGDI United Nations’ E-Government Development Index
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GB gigabyte
Gbps gigabits per second
GDP gross domestic product
GSMA Global System for Mobile Communications Association
HIC high-income country
ICT information and communications technology
ITU International Telecommunication Union
LAC Latin America and the Caribbean
LDC least developed country
LIC low-income country
LLDC landlocked developing country
LMIC lowermiddle-income country
LOSI Local Online Services Index
HIC high-income country
MIC middle-income country
PC personal computer
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SSA sub-Saharan Africa
UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
USB Universal Serial Bus
USFs Universal Service Funds

ix
 Collaboration among
various stakeholders
is key to achieving
inclusive digitalization
and advancing rural
transformation.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE RAPID AND ONGOING DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION SECTION TWO

of government, economic, and social sectors holds THREE LEVELS OF URBAN–RURAL
immense potential to improve outcomes across the DIGITAL DIVIDE
SDGs for smallholder farmers and rural communities delves deeper into the digital divide. It uses the three
more generally. However, it is also widely recognized levels of the digital-divide framework to illustrate how
that digitalization alone does not guarantee inclusion. these dynamics disadvantage rural areas in lower
Rural residents and marginalized groups have the middle-income countries (LMICs), especially women and
most to gain from digitalization but are also the most marginalized groups. These groups disproportionately
at risk of falling further behind due to digital divides. face multiple dimensions of the digital divide, including:
The resulting paradox may leave rural development (i) limited access to digital technology and increased
actors unsure about how to best approach rural digital likelihood to experience barriers to access (known as
transformation. This report helps rural development first-level digital divides), (ii) lower quality of access
practitioners and decision-makers work through and the existence of after-access barriers such as lack
this paradox. It does so by highlighting the factors of digital skills (known as second-level digital divides),
that lead to digital exclusion, providing evidence and (iii) structural inequalities that hinder their ability
regarding how digital divides play out, and providing to benefit from digital technology use (known as third-
recommendations on how to improve digital inclusion level digital divides). These digital divides threaten to
for rural areas and marginalized groups. exacerbate inequalities if the trends uncovered in
Section 1 (rapid digitalization and absence of offline
The first step in working through this paradox is to alternatives) continue.
illustrate the circumstances under which poorly
managed digitalization can lead to digital exclusion. Some key digital-divide findings uncovered in Section 2
The report highlights three factors that when include:
combined lead to digital exclusion: (i) the digitalization
of agrifood systems and other sectors vital to the well- First-level digital divide
being of farmers, (ii) the absence or removal of offline
$ Rural residents are about half as likely to have
alternatives, and (iii) the persistence of digital divides.
basic access to the internet (measured as having
used it once in the last three months) globally,
with the gap being significantly higher in least
SECTION ONE
developed countries (LDCs) (73 percent) and in
DIGITALIZATION ACROSS Africa (70 percent) 1
SECTORS IN RURAL AREAS
provides a brief overview of the ongoing digitalization $ There are persistent divides in mobile phone
in various sectors (digital agriculture, government ownership between rural and urban areas and
services, social protection, humanitarian aid, and between women and men.
education), emphasizing the omnipresent threat of
$ The gender gap in device ownership and the
digital exclusion for rural populations. It is important
gender gap in use of specific digital technologies
to note that this section serves as a starting point
(e.g. mobile money) tends to be wider in rural areas
for discussion rather than as an exhaustive summary
than it is in urban areas. This is especially true for
of the current state of digitalization in each sector.
low-income countries (LICs) and LIMICs.
Additionally, it does not encompass all sectors
undergoing digitalization in rural areas. The intention $ Although most of the world is covered by a mobile
is to highlight that while the digitalization of agrifood signal (at least a 2G signal), rural areas, especially
systems is of particular interest in combating poverty, those in LDCs and Small Island Developing States
hunger and inequality, focusing solely on this aspect (SIDS) are less likely to be covered. These divides
may hinder the efforts, as smallholders are influenced are progressively worse for newer connectivity
by digitalization in sectors beyond agrifood systems. technologies (e.g. 3G, 4G and 5G).
$ People living in rural areas (especially rural women)
are more likely to experience barriers to gaining
access to the internet:
– Rural areas account for a disproportionate
concentration of the worlds poor making
affordability a bigger hurdle for rural communities.
1 ITU. 2021. Statistics. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]

xi
 – A lack of electricity often makes it more difficult intermittent access as they move around rural
for rural residents to charge portable devices or areas with spotty coverage.
to use Wi-Fi or personal computers (PCs).
$ Due to lower levels of educational attainment, rural
– Evidence shows that registering a sim card
residents and women are less likely to have the
is the most reported entitlement that people
digital skills necessary to make effective use of
lacking identification struggle to access. This
digital technology.
requirement disproportionately affects rural
residents, youth, and women who have all been $ There are gaps in the types of devices used
shown to disproportionately lack identification.2 between better-off and marginalized groups.
Some users rely on outdated low-quality devices
with lower levels of security. For example,
Second-level digital divide
3G connectivity was projected to peak in Africa
$ When rural residents and women from LICs and in 2023 largely due to the lack of affordable 4G
LMICs have access to devices and the internet, enabled phones in local markets.7
they often use it less and for less activities than
$ Having access to both a smartphone and a
urban residents and men.
PC provides users with the most meaningful
$ Girls and young women are more likely to only have experience allowing them to take advantage of
access through borrowing devices which may lead the possibilities offered by both sets of devices.
to them engaging in less online activities than However, rural residents are significantly less likely
boys and young men.3 to have access to both or any of these devices.5
$ Data indicates that people living in rural areas who $ When combining multiple second-level digital
are able to engage in digital activities engage in divide dimensions (e.g. access to a smartphone or
them less frequently than urban residents.4 PC, 4G speeds, everyday use and unlimited data),
digital divides between urban areas and rural
$ 18 percent of rural residents in sub-Saharan
areas, and between men and women are shown to
Africa reported using mobile phones and the
be significantly steeper than gaps in basic access
internet at least a few times a week compared with
to the internet.8
48 percent of urban residents in 2018.5
$ Although basic gaps in access to the internet
Third-level digital divide
(measured as using the internet once in the last
three months) are decreasing, gaps in internet $ Rural residents are more likely to live in extreme
speeds between high-income countries (HICs) poverty and are thus less likely to leverage
and LMICs, and urban and rural areas are more economic resources online.
pronounced.
$ Rural residents and women tend to have lower levels
$ Rural areas in LMICs face a notable absence of of educational attainment which limits their ability
high-speed fibre-optic fixed-broadband, leaving to leverage digital technology to further increase
them reliant on slower 2G and 3G mobile broadband. their human capital and employment prospects.
$ Users that cannot afford to stay connected $ Rural residents often have smaller social networks
continuously or who lack sufficient data often resort or less access to powerful and influential people
to rationing their data and only using their devices which limits the social relationships they can
for the most essential activities. Data shows this leverage online.
practice is common across 11 LMICs analysed.6
$ Social norms are often more intractable in
$ Users from rural areas may be more likely to rural areas and shape who is allowed to use
experience periodic (daily or weekly) disruptions technologies and for what purposes. This can
to their internet service creating experiences of further exacerbate outcomes by those deemed

2 Clark, J., Metz, A. & Casher, C. 2021. ID4D Global Dataset 2021, Volume 1: Global ID coverage estimates. Washington, DC, World Bank.
3 Girl Effect. 2018. Real girls, real lives, connected: A global study of access and usage of mobile, told through 3000 voices. New
York, USA, Girl Effect, and London, Vodafone Foundation.
4 GSMA. 2021. Access to mobile services and proof of identity 2021: Revisiting SIM registration and know your customer (KYC)
contexts during COVID-19. London.
5 Kronke, M. 2020. Africa’s digital divide and the promise of e-learning. Afrobarometer Policy Paper No. 66. Accra, Afrobarometer.
6 Silver, L., Vogels, E.A., Mordecai, M., Cha, J., Rasmussen, R. & Rainie, L. 2019. Mobile divides in emerging economies. In: Pew Research
Center. Washington, DC. [Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]
7 GSMA. 2021. The mobile economy: Sub-Saharan Africa 2021. London.
8 Alliance for Affordable Internet. 2022b. Meaningful connectivity for rural communities: Geographic barriers & policy strategies for
digital inclusion. Washington, DC.

xii
 worthy and unworthy of using technology or $ The capacity of both formal and informal
specific digital solutions. intermediaries should be strengthened through
technical support and funding.
$ Better-off social and political movements have
higher levels of digital access and a higher
capacity to make use of technologies to further Addressing digital divides
their causes than poorer and worse off groups.
$ Provide and support the provision of digital-skills
$ Local markets are more likely to be dysfunctional training in a way that is responsive to the needs of
in rural areas. This limits the uptake success of marginalized groups from rural areas.
digital agriculture apps and other SDGs related
$ Provide technical assistance on gender
digital solutions in rural areas unless these failures
mainstreaming to telecentres to help make them
are addressed.
more inclusive of marginalized groups.
$ Provide technical assistance on gender
SECTION THREE
mainstreaming to Universal Service Funds to help
WAYS FORWARD: BEST PRACTICES ensure that their investments benefit all rural
TO IMPROVE DIGITAL INCLUSION residents equally.
presents several ways that rural development actors
can improve digital inclusion. The section proposes
that rural development actors take a series of measures
SECTION FOUR
to address digital exclusion across three areas. First,
digitalization should be responsive to the needs and
CONCLUSIONS
priorities of all individuals, especially the rural poor and
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
recommends rural development organizations adopt
marginalized groups. Second, providing offline options
digital-inclusion narratives based on the three factors
can ensure continued participation for those with
that improve digital inclusion identified in this study:
limited technology access. Third, explicitly addressing
(i) marginalized-group- and gender-responsive
digital divides and reducing structural inequalities are
digitalization, (ii) ensuring offline alternatives, and
crucial to preventing further exclusion and disparities.
(iii) tackling digital divides across all levels. This
These actions are summarized below.
narrative can assist rural development organizations
and practitioners in adapting organizational practices
Gender- and marginalized-group- and implementing programmes that address digital
responsive digitalization exclusion and avoid exacerbating inequalities. Once
an internal normative framework is in place, digital
$ Promote people-centred design processes with
inclusion guidelines can be developed to help partner
an emphasis on putting the most marginalized and
rural development organizations improve digital-
hardest to reach at the centre.
inclusion. Such a tool can help rural development
$ Facilitate gender and marginalized group organizations and digital agriculture practitioners
responsiveness and mainstreaming across all integrate inclusive practices into programme/project
digitalization efforts. design and field operations. These narratives can also
help rural development organizations broaden their
$ Make digital solutions and content accessible for
understanding of digital inclusion and inform the
users with disabilities and users with lower levels
design of surveys that consider after-access barriers
of language literacy.
with data sufficiently disaggregated by gender and
marginalized groups, and between rural areas with
Providing offline options differing characteristics. This will help identify who
$ Offline service delivery options should complement
may be left behind, and to tailor appropriate digital
solutions.
digital solutions, and a “digital by default”
approach or “digital first” strategy should be
In conclusion, achieving an inclusive process of rural
avoided.
digital transformation requires collaboration among
$ Promote multichannel service delivery which various stakeholders. In an increasingly digital world,
blends digital, hybrid and offline options for it is more important than ever to tackle poverty and
citizens to engage with the state and service structural inequalities alongside addressing potential
providers. digital exclusions. FAO and partners must double down
efforts to address disparities between urban and rural
$ Efforts may be needed to map and address
areas, between men and women, as well as between
situations in which offline options are absent or
marginalized and better-off groups within rural areas.
have been removed.

xiii
Bangladesh
In Panjarbhanga, people use a
computer tab as a learning device to
improve the design and management
of agricultural investments.
©FAO/Mohammad Rakibul Hasan
 INTRODUCTION
IN 2021, ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATION UNION’S (ITU) internet usage survey
(ITU, 2021a), approximately 63 percent of the global adult
population was estimated to have used the internet at least once
in the preceding three months. However, significant disparities
in internet usage between rural and urban areas were observed.
Urban residents had a much higher internet usage rate (76 percent)
compared to rural residents (39 percent), and the majority
(96 percent) of individuals who had not used the internet in the
three months preceding the survey were from lower middle-
income countries (LMICs). Gender disparities were also evident,
with 57 percent of women and 62 percent of men having used the
internet in the past three months at the global level, and these gaps
were particularly pronounced in least-developed countries (LDCs).

Many studies cite these “internet user” figures to emphasize the risk
of digital exclusion for individuals without access, but it is important
to note that being classified as an “internet user” simply means
having used the internet once in the last three months. It does not
provide a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s digital
experience or their vulnerability to exclusion in the context of
digital agriculture solutions or digitalization in general (A4AI, 2022;
Hernandez and Faith, 2022).

This study aims to demonstrate that the uneven exposure to

digital exclusion faced by rural residents in LMICs extends beyond
the already high percentage of non-internet users (61 percent).
It particularly affects individuals experiencing intersecting
inequalities, including women in LDCs (81 percent), who are often
overlooked. Additionally, even those who manage to access the
internet in rural areas are likely to encounter after-access barriers
that can contribute to digital exclusion during digitalization.
The study, therefore, seeks to encourage global development
and aid organizations and practitioners to move beyond binary
conceptualizations of the digital divide and adopt a holistic
approach to addressing digital exclusion within their programming
and beyond.

1
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Improving digital access is a crucial priority in the 2030 Agenda

for Sustainable Development, as reflected in various SDGs, targets
and indicators. These include:

TABLE 1
Goals, targets and indicators related to digital access in
the SDGs framework
GOAL 9Build resilient
infrastructure, promote
inclusive and sustainable
GOAL 4 Ensure inclusive industrialization and
and equitable quality foster innovation
education and promote
lifelong learning
opportunities for all
TARGET 9.C
Significantly increase access to ICT and strive to
provide universal and affordable access to the
TARGET 4.4 internet in least developed countries by 2020.
By 2030, substantially increase the number INDICATOR 9.C.1
of youth and adults who have relevant skills, Proportion of the population covered by a mobile
including technical and vocational skills, for network, by technology.
employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.
INDICATOR 4.4.1
Proportion of youth and adults with information GOAL 17 Strengthen the
and communications technology (ICT) skills, means of implementation
by type of skill. and revitalize the
global partnership for
sustainable development
GOAL 5Achieve gender
equality and empower
all women and girls
TARGET 17.6
Enhance North-South, South-South and
triangular regional and international cooperation
on and access to science, technology and
innovation and enhance knowledge sharing
TARGET 5.B on mutually agreed terms, including through
Enhance the use of enabling technology, improved coordination among existing
particularly information and communications mechanisms, in particular at the United
technology, to promote the empowerment of Nations level, and through a global technology
women. facilitation mechanism.
INDICATOR 5.B.1 INDICATOR 17.6.1
Proportion of individuals who own a Fixed internet broadband subscriptions per
mobile telephone, by sex. 100 inhabitants, by speed.

TARGET 17.8
Fully operationalize the technology bank and
science, technology and innovation capacity-
building mechanism for least developed
countries by 2017 and enhance the use of
enabling technology, particularly information
and communications technology.
INDICATOR 17.8.1
Proportion of individuals using the internet.

2
 Introduction

Digital technologies have the potential to impact all 17 SDGs and

the overarching goal of leaving no one behind (Hernandez and
Roberts, 2018; ITU, 2017; Unwin, 2017). ITU (2017) demonstrates
how digital technologies can be leveraged to achieve progress
across all 17 SDGs. However, the ITU also warned that leveraging
digital technology to make progress against SDG goals requires
individuals to have access to digital technologies. As a result, there
is a significant risk of exacerbating inequalities if digital divides
persist (ITU, 2017). It is therefore important to acknowledge that
digitalization and reliance on digital technologies for development
gains can have both positive and negative effects. While digital
technologies offer opportunities to reduce development costs,
improve efficiency and promote inclusion, the digital divide poses
a risk of leaving behind those who are already marginalized and
vulnerable, particularly those facing intersecting deprivations
(Hernandez and Roberts, 2018).

Furthermore, the relationship between digitalization and achieving

the SDGs related to environmental sustainability, social justice,
and equality is complex and not always positive (Hernandez, 2019;
Unwin, 2017). Recently, the United Nations Secretary-General
introduced a Roadmap for Digital Cooperation with a vision where
“every person has safe and affordable access to the internet by
2030, including meaningful use of digitally-enabled services, in
line with the sustainable goals” leading to the creation of a new UN
framework on universal and meaningful digital connectivity (United
Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology
and ITU, 2021; United Nations Secretary-General, 2020a, p. 23).

Digital Rural communities in LMICs, women, young people,

technologies persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, older
persons, migrants, and displaced people are among
have the potential the least likely to have online access and are more
to impact all 17 SDGs likely to experience digital exclusion. FAO recognizes
that bridging the digital divide and promoting digital
and the overarching technology adoption among smallholder farmers and
goal of leaving no producers are crucial for facilitating inclusive digital
transformations that improve agrifood systems and rural
one behind. livelihoods, while ensuring no one is left behind. Reducing
the digital divide is seen as a pathway to poverty reduction
and equitable access to services, thereby accelerating progress
towards achieving the SDGs. Therefore, it is essential to establish
a clear understanding of what digital inclusion and the digital
divide entail – as well as their implications – to achieve inclusive
digital transformation in rural areas.

Digital inclusion refers to equitable, meaningful and safe access

to – and use of – digital technologies, services and associated
opportunities for everyone, everywhere (UN, 2020). The sufficiency
of access, skills and quality of digital technologies can vary across
contexts, over time and among different groups within a given
context. Digitalization alone does not cause digital exclusion. It
is the combination of digitalization done in a manner that is not
responsive to the needs of marginalized groups, the absence of

3
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

offline alternatives, and the persistence of digital divides that

results in exclusion (see Figure 1 below). Given the emphasis on “full
participation” in society, digital exclusion occurs when these three
factors restrict participation in any sector related to well-being.
However, these factors can also be analysed for specific sectors,
such as agrifood systems. Digital inclusion is a dynamic concept
that evolves with the advancement of digital technology, changes
in digital inequalities and the processes of digitalization. Therefore,
it is crucial to periodically reassess these three factors across
sectors and contexts.

FIGURE 1
The three factors that lead to digital exclusion when combined

Digitalization
of services, Absence of Persistence of
opportunities offline options digital divides
and processes

DIGITAL EXCLUSION

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

The process of digitalization has led to the restructuring of

various aspects of social life around digital communication and
media infrastructures (Brennen and Kreiss, 2016). Understanding
the impact of digitalization across sectors in rural areas is crucial
for the goal of improving development outcomes for smallholder
Gender- and
farmers and ensuring food security. As a greater share of economic,
marginalized-group- Providing Addressing
social and civic activities are mediated by digital technologies,
sensitive offline options digital divides
it is important to examine the rapid digitalization occurring in
digitalization
sectors that significantly affect the livelihoods and well-being of
smallholder farmers.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, digitalization was reshaping

services across the private, government and civil society sectors,
making offline access to services increasingly challenging
(Hernandez and Roberts, 2018). The pandemic has accelerated
this trend as organizations have shifted their services online due
DIGITAL INCLUSION
to social distancing and lockdown measures. As digitalization
progresses, individuals with sufficient digital access and skills
have been able to engage with digital agriculture services, social
media marketplaces, digital government services, digital social
protection, online education and other digital services. However,

4
 Introduction

rural populations, particularly women and marginalized groups

in rural areas, have been found to be less likely to participate in
these sectors when services were digitalized during the pandemic
(Arathoon, Raithatha and Tricarico, 2021; Barattini et al., 2022;
Braesemann et al., 2022; UN, 2022).

Over the past 25 years, research on the digital divide has revealed
that uneven well-being outcomes from digitalization exist not
only between individuals who have access to technology and
those who do not (referred to as the first-level digital divide;
Robinson et al., 2020). There are also differences within the large
group of people categorized as “internet users” or “device owners”
(known as the second-level digital divide). Furthermore, even
among users with similar access to technology and digital skills,
evidence shows that individuals who are better off and have greater
access to offline economic resources, human capital, social capital
and other resources can extract more value from technology
compared to less privileged users (known as the third-level digital
divide; Helsper, 2021; Ragnedda and Ruiu, 2017).

The persistence of the three levels of the digital divide between

urban and rural areas, men and women, and better-off and
marginalized groups has significant implications for FAO and
its partners in their efforts to improve the prospects of rural
communities in low-income countries (LICs) and LMICs to benefit
from digitalization and to avoid digital exclusion.

First, rural residents in LICs and LMICs are significantly less likely
to have access to digital infrastructure and devices, and they face
various barriers to owning digital technologies and accessing the
internet, such as affordability, lack of identification required for
purchasing a SIM card, or limited access to electricity. This lack of
access to digital technology creates a significant gap between rural
and urban areas.

Second, access to digital technology alone is not enough for rural

communities to be considered “digitally included.” They are also
more likely to face significant after-access barriers that limit their
ability to fully utilize the internet. These barriers include slow
internet speeds, insufficient data, intermittent access, lack of digital
skills, reliance on others for connectivity, and the use of subpar
devices. These after-access barriers have received less attention
in the international development community, and rural women
and other marginalized groups in rural areas are particularly
affected by them. Addressing these barriers is essential for
achieving digital inclusion and enabling rural communities to utilize
digital technologies for essential activities that can improve their
well‑being.

Third, even when after-access barriers are addressed, rural

communities and marginalized groups tend to extract less value
from their use of the internet due to limited access to economic
resources, social capital, human capital, education and other
resources that can be leveraged online to improve well-being. In

5
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

contrast, better-off groups are better positioned to benefit from

digital technology, further amplifying inequalities. This risks
deepening spatial inequalities between rural and urban areas
and leave rural populations further behind. Bridging this gap and
reducing spatial inequalities is crucial for rural development and
achieving the overarching goal of leaving no one behind, as outlined
in the 2030 Agenda and SDG 10 on reducing inequalities.

Ultimately, is there any good practices or experience that can

promote digital inclusion? Our study has identified some solutions,
that in theory, are the key areas that must be prioritized. These
Digitalization
solutions are grouped Absence
into threeof categories based on the report’s
of services, Persistence of
digital exclusion framework: gender and marginalized group-
offline options
opportunities digital divides
responsive digitalization, offline participation options and addressing
and processes
digital divides (see Figure 2 below). While actions addressing any
factor can contribute to digital inclusion, addressing all three
factors simultaneously is more likely to result in an inclusive digital
rural transformation. This entails tailored digital solutions that
meet the needs of all smallholders, ensuring they have adequate
digital connectivity to fully participate in society and providing the
option to use offline alternatives based on their preferences, needs
and [Link]
In practice, EXCLUSION
FAO and other development actors have
already adopted numerous effective practices and solutions which
are worthy of reference. However, there is significant scope for
these efforts to be expanded and implemented in a holistic and
collaborative manner.

FIGURE 2
Ways to improve digital inclusion

Gender- and
marginalized-group- Providing Addressing
sensitive offline options digital divides
digitalization

DIGITAL INCLUSION

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

6
 Introduction

The report acknowledges that rural geographies and populations

within rural areas are not homogeneous regarding development
levels and the experiences of different groups. Gender inequalities,
compounded by other social differences such as class, race, age
and disability, shape access, use and benefits of digital technologies
and services for rural women and men. Women smallholder
farmers in LICs and LMICs, in particular, face “multiple
Addressing divides” encompassing digital, rural and gender divides,
all three factors further marginalizing them regarding information and
communications technology (ICT) access and use. The
simultaneously is report uses an intersectional inequality lens to analyse
digital inclusion and divides whenever possible. However,
more likely to result there is a lack of disaggregated data and evidence on
in an inclusive the experiences of marginalized groups in rural areas,
creating a blind spot for development organizations and
digital rural policymakers. While gender disaggregated data tends to
transformation. be more available, data for other marginalized groups, such
as Indigenous Peoples, migrants, racial and ethnic minorities,
persons with disabilities and those living in extreme poverty,
is scarce, especially in an internationally comparable format.

It is essential to recognize that comprehensive rural digital-inclusion

data and research are currently limited. The report was conducted
between August and December 2022 and may not cover data
and reports published after this period. It focused on published
resources related to the digital divide, digital inequalities, digital
inclusion and rural development. Resources came from over 300
journal articles, reports, consultations and supplementary materials
from esteemed academic journals accessible through platforms,
employing snowballing methods for thorough exploration. FAO
provided FAO-specific case studies found in the boxes to further
contextualize the report.

This report is organized into five sections. This introduction is

followed by Section 1 which provides a brief overview of the ongoing
digitalization in various sectors, emphasizing the omnipresent
threat of digital exclusion for rural populations. Section 2 provides
a deep dive into the digital divide between urban and rural areas,
with particular emphasis on how it affects women and marginalized
groups using the three levels of the digital-divide framework.
Section 3 presents several interventions that rural development
actors can utilize to improve digital inclusion. The final section
concludes the report and provides recommendations.

7
Ecuador
Freshly caught fish arrives at
the artisanal Fishery Cooperative
of Santa Rosa de Salinas.
©FAO/Camilo Pareja
 1 DIGITALIZATION
ACROSS SECTORS IN
RURAL AREAS
DIGITALIZATION, CHARACTERIZED BY THE RESTRUCTURING
OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF LIFE around digital communication and
media infrastructures (Brennen and Kreiss, 2016), has become
increasingly pervasive, impacting economic, social and civic
domains. Smallholder farmers, as key stakeholders in rural
areas, are involved in agrifood systems and participate in other
sectors, such as government services, education, health care, and
humanitarian aid.

The implications of digitalization extend beyond the realm of

agrifood systems, as smallholders rely on non-agricultural services
and opportunities to interact with the state, cope with shocks,
maintain their health, acquire digital skills, secure employment and
generate income for reinvestment in their agricultural operations.
Neglecting the broader impact of digitalization on smallholders
would be short-sighted, considering the interconnectedness
of their livelihoods and the various sectors they engage with.
Recognizing the holistic nature of smallholders’ engagement with
digitalization is crucial to effectively addressing the challenges of
digital exclusion they may encounter.

This section offers a glimpse into the expanding influence of

digitalization on people residing in rural areas across different
sectors. It highlights shifts in sectors directly related to rural
livelihoods, such as agrifood systems and social commerce, along
with government services encompassing e-government and social
protection. Additionally, the impact of digitalization on humanitarian
assistance and education is explored. However, it is important to
note that this section serves as an introductory overview rather
than an exhaustive analysis of the current state of digitalization in
each sector, including digital agriculture. Numerous other sectors,
including health, water, sanitation, and hygiene, energy, finance,
private services, civil society and education, also significantly
affect the lives of rural populations in LICs and LMICs and are also
undergoing digital transformations.

9
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

The three factors contributing to digital exclusion – digitalization

that is non-responsive to the needs of rural residents and
marginalized groups, the absence of offline options, and persistent
digital divides – are prevalent across the sectors examined in
this section. Nevertheless, a comprehensive analysis is required
to encompass the broader range of sectors impacting rural
livelihoods. Recognizing the multifaceted impact of digitalization
underscores the need for FAO and its partners to adopt a holistic
approach to effectively address poverty, hunger and inequality,
as it acknowledges the interconnectedness of smallholders with
various sectors beyond agrifood systems and acknowledges the
importance of emphasizing rural poor, small-scale producers and
marginalized and vulnerable women and men, including young
people, persons with disabilities, migrants and displaced peoples,
Indigenous Peoples, as well as communities and other local
organizations, in the digitalization process.

It is crucial to recognize that digital exclusion is not uniformly

experienced by all individuals living in rural areas. Spatial and
group-based factors contribute to certain rural areas and social
groups being more exposed to the threat of digital exclusion than
others. FAO has identified specific rural areas that are particularly
vulnerable to limited access, including very remote communities,
areas with large Indigenous Peoples, and regions with high poverty
rates, particularly in LDCs (Trendov, Varas and Zeng, 2019a).

In economic terms, as pointed out in the study by Schroeder,

Lampietti and Elabed. (2021, p. 14), “remoteness hampers
economic growth.” Certain characteristics further exacerbate
digital exclusion in rural areas. Remote islands, areas with limited
physical connectivity to major cities, regions far from border
crossings, and locations that have struggled to attract government
or private investment are particularly susceptible to digital
exclusion. Conversely, rural areas situated near cities, with better
transportation links, and those that have received significant
investment tend to have better access to digital technologies
(Abay et al., 2020; Akbar et al., 2022; Chamberlin, Pender and
Yu, 2006; Herrmann, 2017; Kaiser and Barstow, 2022; Kim and
Nangia, 2010; Schroeder, Lampietti and Elabed, 2021). Additionally,
within a village or rural area, it is not uncommon for certain parts to
have access to digital infrastructure or internet connectivity, while
others lack such access (Mason et al., 2022). Unfortunately, there is
a dearth of data on variations in digital technology availability and
other factors related to the three levels of the digital divide between
different rural areas within countries and within specific rural
areas. Consequently, Section 1 and Section 2 cannot fully account
for these differences, but readers should be mindful of them.

In addition to spatial disparities in digital technology access, not all

groups within rural areas have equal opportunities to access digital
technologies, even when available. Women and marginalized groups
residing in rural areas are more likely to face digital exclusion due to
their heightened vulnerability across the three levels of the digital
divide (as discussed in Section 2).

10
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

The degree of digitalization and exposure to digital exclusion is

context-specific and shaped by local, national and international
actors and their decisions regarding digitalizing content, services
and processes. Digital solutions cannot single-handedly determine or
reduce exposure to digital exclusion. Mapping the local and national
digital landscapes within sectors highly relevant to smallholder
farmers can help to identify potential partners who may
Exposure to require influence or technical assistance to ensure that their
digital exclusion services meet the needs of smallholders. Collaboration
among government entities, private sector organizations,
is context‑specific development agencies and civil society actors is essential.
and shaped Furthermore, digital solutions must be responsive to
gender, youth, Indigenous Peoples, those living in poverty
by local, national and other vulnerable, excluded, or marginalized groups.
and international
actors
1.1 Digitalization
of agrifood systems
Agriculture and food continue to be significant sectors of
employment worldwide, particularly in LICs and LMICs. In LICs,
agriculture accounts for slightly over half of total employment,
while in LMICs, it represents just over a third (IFAD, 2021). Rural
areas also have a higher proportion of agricultural employment.
The broader agrifood systems employs an even larger workforce,
comprising approximately 70 percent of all employment in LICs
and LMICs (World Bank, 2022a). Consequently, any changes or
transformations in agrifood-systems practices have a significant
impact on people living in rural areas of LICs and LMICs.

Digital agriculture9 solutions, which encompasses a wider array

of technologies comparing to ‘E-agriculture’ solutions driven
by ICTs, are increasingly being recognized as catalysts for the
transformation of agrifood systems. These solutions offer the
potential to help farmers reduce costs, enhance yields, access
new markets, find better prices for their products, and ultimately
increase their incomes (Schroeder, Lampietti and Elabed, 2021). A
forum on digital agriculture co-hosted by FAO in 2020 highlighted
the capacity of digital agriculture to contribute to a wide range of
SDGs (FAO and Zhejiang University, 2020).

However, it has been acknowledged that larger, wealthier, and

more educated farmers tend to be more involved in and benefit
from digital agriculture compared to small-scale farmers (World
Bank, 2019a). Therefore, digital agriculture interventions should
carefully address and mitigate these inequalities in access to
human and other resources. As Schroeder, Lampietti and Elabed
(2021, p. 35) emphasize, “While digitalization promises to bridge
divides in rural areas, it can exacerbate them if not well managed.”

9 Source: [Link]

11
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

BOX 1
Digitalizing the milk supply
chain in Kazakhstan
The Inclusive Dairy Value Chain Development Project
implemented by FAO in partnership with the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in
Kazakhstan aimed to digitalize the suppliers of raw
milk in the country’s dairy industry. The project utilized
a free mobile app called Collect Mobile to collect data
and information on milk output, procurement, supply
structure, number of suppliers, number of cows and
productivity across villages. This data was analysed
through a dashboard, offering a fast and user-friendly
data collection method and improving data quality in
©FAO/EBRD joint project
the dairy industry.
The app plays a crucial role in helping smallholder in Kazakhstan. Maintained by the Dairy Union of
farmers meet industry standards and remain part Kazakhstan, the platform offers access to relevant
of the dairy supply chain. Since dairy factories in knowledge and guidance for dairy farmers, milk
Kazakhstan source milk from numerous small farms, collectors, milk processors and even consumers. The
the app improves supply chain management by resources available on the platform include video
providing better information on safety parameters tutorials, a farmer’s resource book, animations and
and procurement quantities. In turn, this enhances posters in both Kazakh and Russian. Topics covered
support for small-scale farmers. range from maintaining cow health and wellbeing, to
Additionally, FAO and EBRD collaborated to proper workspace and utensil disinfection, as well as
launch Ақылды сүт (“smart milk”), a comprehensive the significance of consuming safe and antibiotic-free
online platform focused on good farming practices milk. This knowledge can be accessed anytime and
and food safety throughout the dairy value chain anywhere through a smartphone or tablet.

This subsection provides an overview of digitalization trends

observed in the agricultural and agrifood sector. It presents the
various use cases and applications through which agricultural services
are being digitized and rolled out. It also discusses the challenges
“DIGITAL AGRICULTURE faced by small-scale farmers in accessing these newly digitalized
is the use of new and agricultural services. It is worth noting that there are several other
advanced technologies, reports available that offer more detailed analyses of digitalization in
integrated into one system, the agricultural sector, including studies by Arathoon, Raithatha and
to enable farmers and other Tricarico (2021), Schroeder, Lampietti and Elabed (2021), Trendov,
stakeholders within the Varas and Zeng (2019b), and the World Bank (2019a).
agriculture value chain to
improve food production.” There are seven primary use cases for digital agriculture:
The UN Digital Compact
definition encompasses
% Smart farming: “refers to managing farms using modern
a broader range of
technologies and strategies information and communications technologies to increase the
that utilize digital tools and quantity and quality of products while optimizing the human
data-driven solutions to labour required” (Sciforce, 2023, para. 2). Relevant technologies
optimize various aspects include sensors, software, connectivity, location,10 robotics,
of farming and agricultural and data analytics. However, “[t]he driving force of smart
practices. farming is IoT [internet of things] – connecting machines and

10 The term “location” here covers also geospatial enablement and/or geospatially enabled
communities and society; such enablement is achieved through Spatial Data Infrastructures
(foundational, authoritative digital geospatial data, services and applications, and
interoperability standards) and Geospatial Knowledge Infrastructure (knowledge creation and
foresight) cf. [Link] and [Link]

12
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

BOX 2
[Link] acts as an online agricultural
business incubator for rural Guatemalan youth
Under FAO’s Integrated Country Approach for boosting and practical tools for rural youth, offering them a
decent jobs for youth in agrifood systems, the space to exhibit their products and services for free.
organization has supported the digital engagement As of the end of 2022, the platform had an average
of rural youth in Guatemala through the Chisparural. of over 560 weekly web users, 365 registered users,
GT platform. This platform aims to increase access 1 630 Facebook followers and a WhatsApp group with
to information, training and marketing opportunities over 158 members. The current version of [Link]
for rural youth, while also fostering peer learning includes new services such as la Vitrina, featuring 65
and networking. The development of [Link] agribusinesses and eight success stories, along with
was based on assessments of the communication audiovisual content. It also includes Chispa Lab, where
ecosystem of rural youth to ensure it meets their online trainings are provided based on the demands of
needs (FAO, 2022a; Pafumi and Arimbi, 2022). youth, covering topics such as value chains and digital
[Link] provides a range of services, tips security ([Link], 2022).
Sources: [Link]. 2022. Jóvenes con Chispa. In: [Link]. [Cited 29 March 2024].
[Link]
FAO. 2022. Identikit of the East African youth agripreneur in the digital space. Factsheet. Rome. [Link]
Pafumi, M. & Arimbi, V. 2022. Ready to go digital? Assessing the digital readiness of young agripreneurs in East Africa. Nairobi, FAO.
[Link] org/10.4060/cb8026en

sensors integrated on farms to make farming processes data-

driven and automated” (Sciforce, 2023, para. 5). Through the
use of the internet, the farming process can be optimized as
follows: “IoT devices installed on a farm should collect and
E-AGRICULTURE process data in a repetitive cycle that enables farmers to react
is seen as an emerging quickly to emerging issues and changes in ambient conditions”
field focusing on the (Sciforce, 2023, para. 6).
enhancement of
agricultural and rural % Farm management: in a digital context, a farm management
development through information system refers to “a system for storing and
improved information and processing farm-related collected data, provide support to
communications processes. farmers for decision making in every-day farm management”
In this context, ICT is
(Karydas et al., 2023, p. 2).
used as an umbrella term
encompassing all information
% Access to knowledge and advisory services: “Digitally
and communications
technologies including delivered information on topics such as agronomic best
devices, networks, mobiles, practices, pests, and diseases, weather and market prices, as
services and applications; well as more sophisticated digital advisory services and farm
these range from innovative management software tailored to the specific farmer, farm or
internet-era technologies field” (Tsan et al., 2019, p. 35).
and sensors to other pre-
existing aids such as fixed % Access to markets: this includes “link[ing] smallholder farmers
telephones, televisions, to high-quality farm inputs (e.g. seeds, fertilizers, herbicides/
radios and satellites (FAO and pesticides), production and post-harvest machinery and
ITU, 2016).
mechanization services (e.g. irrigation, tractors, cold storage), or
off-take markets, including agro-dealers, wholesalers, retailers,
or even to end-consumers.” (Tsan et al., 2019, p. 35).

% Access to finance: includes access to “digital payments, savings,

smallholder credit, and agricultural insurance” (Tsan et al., 2019,
p. 35).

13
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

% Supply chain management: “business-to-business services that

help agribusinesses, cooperatives, nucleus farms, input agro-
dealers, and other smallholder farmer value chain intermediaries
to manage their smallholder relationships” (Tsan et al., 2019, p. 35).

% Governance and intelligence (or macroagricultural intelligence):

“Data analytics solutions and digital decision support tools that
integrate a variety of data sources on smallholder farmers,
farms and markets and convert this information into useful
country- and value-chain level insights and decision tools for
government policymakers, extension agencies, agronomists,
agribusinesses and investors.” (Tsan et al., 2019, p. 35). Governance
of digital services includes guidelines on the governance of digital
data, including secure storage of agricultural data, as well as
transparency on the usage of their data, and access to beneficial
but anonymously stored data (see, for example, BLW, 2018;
Gugganig and Bronson, 2022).

It needs to be noted that these use cases are aimed at providing

a broad overview and do not cover all possible applications and
technologies within the field of digital agriculture.

In the past, digital agriculture initiatives, particularly in Asia and

Africa, have primarily focused on advisory services. However,
there has been a shift towards bundling information and advisory
with other digital agriculture activities. For instance, more than
50 percent of digital agriculture solutions in Africa included bundled
services across multiple use cases by 2019 (Arathoon, Raithatha
and Tricarico, 2021; Tsan et al., 2019). Additionally, several digital
agriculture super platforms have emerged, offering services across
various categories (Tsan et al., 2019).

Over the past decade, the digitalization of the agricultural sector

has gained momentum. The number of digital agricultural solutions
launched in LICs and LMICs increased from 209 in 2013 to 946
as of March 2023, as indicated in Figure 3, according to data
from Wageningen University’s database (Digital Agri Hub, 2024).
However, the rate of new solution launches has slowed, with only
11 new solutions launched in 2022. Figure 4 illustrates that sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia have launched the most
digital agriculture solutions, with 538 and 267 solutions, respectively.
The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) and East and Southeast
Asia regions follow closely in terms of solution launches. It is worth
noting that India accounts for a significant proportion of solutions
launched in Southern Asia, representing over 80 percent of the
total, while Bangladesh ranks second with just under 20 percent. In
other regions, Kenya leads in SSA, Indonesia in East and Southeast
Asia, and Colombia in LAC (Digital Agri Hub, 2024).

Engagement with digital agriculture solutions varies significantly

among different groups, as shown in Figure 4. In SSA, a large
proportion of users are smallholders, accounting for 84 percent
of the total, whereas in Southern Asia, this proportion is less than
half at 33 percent (Digital Agri Hub, 2024). In West and Central

14
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

Asia, Oceania and Northern Africa, digital agriculture solutions are

exclusively used by smallholders, although these regions have a
limited number of solutions implemented. In LAC, over half of the
users are smallholders.

FIGURE 3
Number of digital agriculture solutions implemented per region
(lower middle-income countries only)
East and Southeast Asia 124

Latin America and the Caribbean 149

Northern Africa 41

Southern Asia 267

Sub-Saharan Africa 538

West and Central Asia 15

Europe 34

Oceania 15
Number of solutions

Note: Data presented reflects information gathered in December 2022

Source: Digital Agri Hub. 2024. 2024. Dashboard. In: Digital Agri Hub. Wageningen,
The Kingdom of the Netherlands. [Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]
[Link]/web/guest/dashboardframe

FIGURE 4
User percentage of digital agriculture solutions by group and region
(lower middle-income countries only)

East and Southeast Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Northern Africa

Southern Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

West and Central Asia

Europe

Oceania

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage (%)

Smallholders Women Youth

Note: Data presented reflects information gathered in December 2022. Data for
percentage of smallholder users in Europe is not available
Source: Digital Agri Hub. 2024. 2024. Dashboard. In: Digital Agri Hub. Wageningen,
The Kingdom of the Netherlands. [Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]
[Link]/web/guest/dashboardframe

15
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

In terms of gender, women represent the majority of users in

Southern Asia, and interestingly, in Northern Africa, where
women’s participation in the labour market is typically lower
than that of men (ILO, 2019). The proportion of female users is
lowest in SSA and LAC, possibly reflecting the lower involvement
of women in the agricultural sector, particularly in LAC (Global
Agriculture, n.d.).

Regarding youth involvement, it is highest in the SSA region. While

SSA is known to have the world’s youngest population, the higher
youth involvement rates in this region cannot be solely attributed
to demographics. In contrast, youth involvement barely reaches
10 percent in Southern Asia and is even lower than 10 percent
in LAC. The difference with Southern Asia may be due to the
relatively lower targeting of smallholders in that region compared
to SSA and the challenges young people face in accessing land, as
they typically have more difficulty than older adults (FAO, CTA
and IFAD, 2014). However, a more in-depth analysis is necessary
to better understand how usage patterns affect farmers from
different demographics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the

adoption and expansion of digital agriculture initiatives worldwide,
as noted by the Global System for Mobile Communications
Association (GSMA) (Arathoon, Raithatha and Tricarico, 2021).
With in-person agricultural advisory services coming to a halt due
to lockdown and social distancing measures, governments, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and agribusinesses had to
find alternative ways to reach farmers with information related to
farming and the pandemic. This led to the use of a combination
of offline mechanisms such as radio, TV, loudspeakers and
printed media, as well as digital channels including short message
service (SMS), interactive voice response, social media and digital
agriculture apps.

Access to markets became more challenging for farmers,

prompting an increased demand for market linkage tools from
digital agriculture initiatives that previously focused primarily
on providing advisory services. The pandemic also amplified the
need for agricultural e-commerce among consumers, smallholder
farmers and the agricultural sector as a whole. The closure of the
hospitality sector severely disrupted business-to-business (B2B)
agricultural supply chains, including those that heavily relied on
digitalization. To mitigate losses, many agritech companies pivoted
and established digitalized business-to-consumer (B2C) sales
channels. Consequently, digital agriculture solutions focusing on
market linkages shifted their focus from selling to businesses to
selling directly to consumers.

Additionally, most digital agriculture applications incorporated

COVID-19 advisory services to assist farmers in adapting to
changing regulations and practices during the pandemic. These
apps provided updates on market closures, revised schedules,
exemptions for agricultural activities during lockdowns, and

16
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

guidance on navigating challenges arising from inaccessible

markets, such as storing unsold food and utilizing alternative
organic inputs (Arathoon, Raithatha and Tricarico, 2021). Adding
COVID-19 advisory services also served as a way to combat the
spread of fake news. However, farmers who lacked sufficient access
to digital services were excluded from the new offerings and
relevant COVID-19 information crucial to their livelihoods, health
and ability to navigate through misinformation.

The lack of access to technology is a major barrier preventing

digital agriculture services from reaching more smallholder
farmers, as highlighted by Tsan et al. (2019). Chandra and Collis
(2021) identified various barriers to the adoption of digital
agriculture among smallholders in LICs and LMICs, including
connectivity and access, affordability, literacy and skills, timely
and relevant information, and data trust and security. Similar to
mobile network operators, which primarily operate in urban areas
due to lower investment costs and the higher purchasing power of
urban populations, digital agriculture initiatives also tend to focus
on more profitable market segments. This unequal distribution
of digital agriculture solutions poses a threat to exacerbating
the digital divide in geographies and communities that are more
difficult to reach.

©FAO/Lekha Edirisinghe

17
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

The level of technology, skills and resources required to engage

with digital agriculture is continuously evolving. In 2019, one-third of
respondent companies in Africa offering digital agriculture solutions
were already using advanced technologies such as blockchain,
machine learning, drones, IoT, big data, satellite positioning, remote
sensing, and others, and nearly 60 percent expected to implement
advanced technologies by 2022 (Tsan et al., 2019). Globally, a wide
range of emerging technologies are already in use, as depicted in
Figure 5. Data analytics and business intelligence are the most widely
used emerging technology in digital agriculture in LICs and LMICs
(20.6 percent), followed by artificial intelligence (17.5 percent), cloud-
based services (16.6 percent), and big data (15.8 percent) (Digital
Agri Hub, 2024). Other advanced technologies like blockchain,
remote sensing, foundational authoritative geospatial datasets and
drones are also commonly employed.

FIGURE 5
Number of digital agriculture solutions launched by type of emerging technology
(lower-income and lower middle-income countries only) (n = 946)

Artificial Intelligence 166

Big data 149

Blockchain 91

Cloud-based services 157

Data analytics and business intelligence 195

Drones 70

Field sensors and diagnostics equipment 61

Geographic information system 67

Number of solutions

Note: Data presented reflects information gathered in December 2022

Source: Digital Agri Hub. 2024. 2024. Dashboard. In: Digital Agri Hub. Wageningen, The Kingdom of
the Netherlands. [Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]
dashboardframe

However, as these solutions increasingly rely on advanced

technologies, the hardware and digital skills required by farmers
to fully utilize them are likely to increase. Prior to the pandemic,
Tsan et al. (2019) already observed that sophisticated management
software solutions were commonly used by large farms in developed
countries and were becoming more accessible to large farms in
developing countries. A report for the G20 in 2022 emphasized
the persistence of unequal capacities to implement precision
agriculture between developed and developing countries, as well
as between large and small farms, which could further exacerbate
spatial, social and economic divides (Anbumozhi et al., 2022).

18
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

Numerous challenges to expanding precision agriculture to

developing countries have been identified including: a lack of
technological infrastructure, limited access to digital equipment,
inadequate internet and electricity access, fragmented informal
value chains, low levels of digital literacy, insufficient data
regulation and governance mechanisms for emerging technological
solutions, capacity gaps in national agricultural ministries, and a
lack of awareness about digital solutions (Anbumozhi et al., 2022).
Smallholder farmers, especially female smallholder farmers, are
significantly less likely to benefit from these solutions, posing
risks of increasing income inequality between smallholder and
large farms within LMICs (Hackfort, 2021). Additionally, there is
a concern that smallholder farmers could lose their jobs due to
automation if digitalization interventions are introduced without
adequate locally-rooted self-sufficient agricultural skills (Schroeder,
Lampietti and Elabed, 2021).

Farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises and

microentrepreneurs are increasingly utilizing social media
platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram,
and WeChat to market and sell their goods and services (Caribou
Digital and Qhala, 2020). In LICs and LMICs, the use of social media
for establishing an online presence, marketing products and driving
sales far surpasses the usage of traditional e-commerce platforms.
For instance, in Kenya, Facebook is reported to be the most
popular online forum for buying and selling agricultural produce,
surpassing the activity levels on existing agricultural marketplace
platforms (Barrie and Wills, 2016). Facebook farming groups, with
memberships of up to 40 000 individuals consisting of both buyers
and sellers, demonstrate significant engagement on social media.

Social media platforms may offer a more inclusive environment

for economically disadvantaged farmers and entrepreneurs
compared to formal digital agriculture and e-commerce platforms.
Many digitally connected small businesses predominantly rely
on Facebook, WhatsApp and other consumer platforms to cater
to their increasing commercial needs. “Social commerce,” is often
hailed as a means of levelling the playing field, as even the smallest
businesses can utilize social platforms at a low cost (Pon, 2020).
Unlike digital agriculture platforms, interactions on social media
platforms typically incur minimal monetary costs, enabling
individuals to promote their businesses, labour, or products for free
(as long as they can afford being online). For example, small and
microenterprises can directly contact potential customers through
Facebook Marketplace or Facebook groups. However, most social
media platforms do not provide integrated payment services,
requiring farmers to supplement them with digital finance solutions
or conduct in-person transactions with clients (Caribou Digital and
Qhala, 2020).

19
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Although social media platforms offer potential opportunities, there

are certain challenges associated with earning income through the
sale of goods on these platforms. The stability of income can be
uncertain, and individuals with higher levels of digital skills and
larger social networks tend to have an advantage in capturing
sales. Referrals from friends and family, through resharing and
tagging, play a significant role in increasing the visibility of social
media posts. Building trust can also be a hurdle in this context.
Establishing prior in-person relationships with participants in social
media groups can help foster trust and enhance sales prospects
(Caribou Digital and Qhala, 2020). Moreover, evidence suggests that
English proficiency is advantageous for navigating platforms like
Facebook to access international markets through these channels
(Caribou Digital and Qhala, 2020; Jack, Chen and Jackson, 2017).
It is important to recognize the potential risks of misinformation or
unreliable content shared within farmer groups on Facebook. While
social agriculture and social commerce are likely prevalent, data
on these practices, especially among rural populations, is scarce
(Schoemaker, 2021). However, ongoing efforts by organizations such
as Caribou Digital aim to address these knowledge gaps in the field.

1.2 Digitalization
of government services and
social protection systems

1.2.1 Government services

Smallholder farmers – as citizens, residents and sometimes
beneficiaries – often rely on government and non-state actor
services, such as humanitarian organizations, NGOs and development
organizations. These services can range from promoting investment
and productivity through land-titling, input subsidies, and extension
services (including skills development and microfinance linkages),
to social protection measures like food transfers, food subsidies,
cash transfers and public works schemes. Some programmes aim
to uplift smallholders out of poverty and improve their livelihoods,
known as graduation or “cash plus” programmes (Lind, Sabates-
Wheeler and Szyp, 2022; Tirivayi, Knowles and Davis, 2016).

Government services worldwide are undergoing rapid digitalization.

The United Nations’ E-Government Development Index (EGDI),
published biennially since 2001, tracks the progress of digital
government services across 193 UN Member States. The index
reveals a consistent increase in the number of countries offering
digital services and the range of services available (United
Nations, 2022). In 2022, 189 out of 193 UN Member States had
national online portals providing information and services, with at
least one transactional service available online. This represents a
substantial growth compared to the first index in 2001, when only

20
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

36 countries had portals and only 17 offered online transactions

for citizens (United Nations, 2001). Presently, countries offer an
average of 16 out of the 22 services tracked by the EGDI, and
some countries and subnational governments even provide access
to hundreds of digital services.

A notable trend is the establishment of “one-stop shops” which are

government portals offering citizens the convenience of applying
for services from all ministries and agencies in one place. By
eliminating the need to physically visit different locations during
working hours, these one-stop shops simplify the process for
citizens and residents. Users no longer need to determine which
government department provides a specific service nor create
separate accounts for each department. Instead, they can access all
services through a single sign-on. The availability of one-stop shops
has significantly increased, with 72 percent of UN Member States
and over half of the analysed cities introducing this digital service
delivery model by 2022 (United Nations, 2022). This marks a
substantial growth from 2014 when only 37 percent of UN Member
States offered one-stop-shop digital services (United Nations, 2014).

However, significant disparities exist in e-government service

availability, comprehensiveness and access both between and
within countries. A strong and notable correlation is observed
between country income levels and their scores on the EGDI (see
Table 2 below). The 15 countries with “very high” EGDI scores are
exclusively high-income countries (HICs). While improvements in
EGDI scores have been consistent across all income groups, LMICs
and upper-middle-income countries have witnessed the most
rapid progress in the recent e-government index, indicating some
convergence between HICs and middle-income countries (MICs)
(United Nations, 2022). LICs have shown improvements in EGDI,
outpacing HICs but lagging behind MICs, indicating their continued
progress at a slower pace.

TABLE 2
E-Government Development Index scores by income group
COUNTRY GROUPING BY INCOME EGDI AVERAGE (OUT OF 1)

Low income 0.2963

Lower middle income 0.4562

Upper middle income 0.5725

High income 0.7542

Average 0.5554

Source: United Nations. 2022. United Nations E-Government Survey 2022: The future of digital
government. New York, USA, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://
[Link]/28a3knpk

21
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

The 2022 EGDI highlights the widespread utilization of digital

technologies by governments to provide services in response to
the pandemic. Around 90 percent of UN Member States employed
digital portals to disseminate information and deliver services (see
Table 3 below) aimed at mitigating the impact of COVID-19 (United
Nations, 2022). Online services related to COVID-19 encompassed
distance learning, telehealth, vaccine scheduling and COVID-19 test
scheduling. However, there is evidence suggesting that digitalized
COVID-19 measures lacked inclusivity. Individuals without access
to digital technologies encountered difficulties in accessing
information and services related to the pandemic.

For instance, in India, the automation of vaccine appointments

primarily benefited wealthier individuals with better connectivity
in urban areas, enabling them to secure vaccine slots in rural areas
before rural residents could become aware of them amid vaccine
shortages. Additionally, opportunistic actors with advanced digital
skills exploited bots to monopolize all vaccine slots and then
charged people for appointments that the government was offering
for free, further disadvantaging impoverished and rural residents
(Bansal, 2021).

TABLE 3
Countries offering services related to COVID-19 in 2022
COUNTRIES THAT OFFERED SERVICES AND
NUMBER OF UN MEMBER STATES (OF 193)
CONTENT REL ATED TO:

Distance-learning platforms or related 141

information

Telehealth scheduling or services 99

COVID-19-vaccine information and

156
scheduling

Schedule medical test or obtain

102
information about medical tests

Source: United Nations. 2022. United Nations E-Government Survey 2022: The future of digital
government. New York, USA, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://
[Link]/28a3knpk

The e-government survey has recently introduced the Local Online

Services Index (LOSI), which evaluates the e-government presence
of the most populous city in each country. The survey findings
reveal that local governments generally have a less prominent
online presence and offer fewer digital services compared to
national governments. Notably, a concerning trend identified by
the survey is the strong correlation between a city’s size and its
LOSI score. Megacities with populations exceeding 10 million
tend to perform better on the index, exhibiting a greater online
presence and offering a wider range of digital services compared
to smaller cities with populations in the hundreds of thousands

22
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

(United Nations, 2022). This trend raises concerns for rural areas,
as it suggests that rural citizens may not have equal access to local
services online compared to their urban counterparts.

Regrettably, the LOSI assessment has not yet been conducted

within cities or regions of the same country. Furthermore, rural areas
have not been included in the LOSI framework. In order to address
these gaps, collaborating with the United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) is crucial to capture the
e-government experiences of rural areas in future LOSI analyses.
This would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of
the e-government landscape at the local level and enable targeted
efforts to bridge the digital divide between rural and urban areas.

1.2.2 Social protection

The global pandemic has had a devastating impact, leading to a
reversal of years of development progress. In 2020, the international
poverty rate increased for the first time since 1998, and millions
of workers faced unemployment due to lockdowns and social
distancing measures (World Bank, 2020). It is estimated that between
88 and 115 million people were pushed into poverty as a result of
the pandemic, with marginalized groups being disproportionately
affected and becoming part of the “new poor.” The number of
people suffering from hunger also significantly increased by
approximately 150 million between the start of the pandemic
and 2021, after remaining stable since 2015 (FAO et al., 2022).
Smallholder farmers were among the hardest hit by the pandemic,
experiencing substantial reductions in farm and off-farm income as
well as food consumption (Hammond et al., 2022).

Governments responded by expanding social protection

programmes to provide relief to those facing hardship. By December
2020, over 1 400 social protection programmes had been planned
or implemented in 215 economies, benefiting more than 1.1 billion
people (Better Than Cash Alliance, 2021; Gentilini et al., 2020). In
2020, new social protection measures were being added globally
at a rate of 180 per week. This rapid expansion of social protection
measures has continued, with over 3 800 implemented by 223
economies as of January 2022 (Gentilini et al., 2022).

However, there is a significant “stimulus gap” between HICs, which

have been able to mobilize resources to fund the growing demand
for social protection, and LICs that lack fiscal space and sufficient
social protection coverage to mount a proportionate response. This
inequality puts LICs at risk of an uneven recovery (ILO, 2022).
Therefore, the pandemic has underscored the importance of
strong social protection systems and the establishment of social
protection floors to enhance resilience to future shocks and crises.

Digital technologies have been promoted as a tool to expand social

protection in a safe, efficient and effective manner in response to
the pandemic (Chirchir, 2020). When implemented responsively

23
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

BOX 3
Farmer registry in Lebanon supported by FAO

The integration of farmer registries and social with FAO and the Ministry of Social Affairs developed
protection information systems can have significant a national farmers registry. This registry includes a
benefits in delivering targeted support to smallholder targeting module specifically designed to identify
farmers and vulnerable groups. Farmer registries and assist poor farmers based on a multidimensional
serve as electronic databases that provide detailed poverty index. It complements existing beneficiary
information on the demographic and socio-economic registries for social assistance programmes.
status of farmer households, including their asset By creating a legally recognized registry of
holdings. These registries are typically managed vulnerable farmers and fishers, these groups gain
by agriculture ministries and enable the delivery of access to social safety nets in Lebanon. Furthermore,
tailored support, such as agricultural inputs, training it serves as a critical step towards their inclusion in
and extension services. the National Social Security Fund and other social
In Lebanon, farmers and fishers are among the insurance schemes. The establishment of a national
country’s poorest populations and are often engaged farmer registry also promotes informed decision-
in the informal sector, making them ineligible for making and policy coherence between agricultural and
national social protection systems. To address this social protection sectors in Lebanon, ensuring that
issue and extend social protection coverage to rural resources and support are effectively and efficiently
populations, the Ministry of Agriculture in collaboration directed to those in need.

and inclusively, digital social protection systems can offer benefits

for both beneficiaries and governments (Barattini et al., 2022). For
governments, digital social protection can reduce administrative
costs, minimize duplication and errors, improve data accuracy,
enhance coordination of interventions, expedite beneficiary
targeting and enhance delivery efficiency. For beneficiaries, digital
social protection can reduce time and travel costs. Women can
benefit from increased control over benefits and reduced risks of
harassment and violence associated with registering and receiving
benefits (Barattini et al., 2022).

Currently, there is a lack of internationally comparable data on the

level of digitalization of social protection systems both within and
between countries. However, a review conducted in 2019 indicated
that an increasing number of LICs and LMICs were beginning to
digitize aspects of social protection delivery, such as information
systems, financial services, and grievance and accountability
mechanisms (Carter et al., 2019). Similarly, the UN Special
Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights observed that
welfare and social protection systems, particularly in HICs and
MICs, were undergoing a digital transformation, with some LICs
laying the foundations for similar systems (United Nations General
Assembly, 2019). Governments were found to be utilizing digital
technologies for various purposes, including identity verification,
eligibility assessment, benefit calculation, payment distribution,
fraud detection and prevention, and beneficiary communication
(United Nations General Assembly, 2019). A review by FAO also
highlighted that while digital social protection tools existed before
the pandemic, their adoption and development have accelerated as
a result of the crisis (Barattini et al., 2022).

24
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

©FAO/David Khelashvili

The UN e-government survey does not currently provide

specific metrics to differentiate digital social protection systems
from broader e-government services. However, it has observed
a consistent increase in online services offered to vulnerable
populations, including youth, women, immigrants, older people,
persons with disabilities and those living in poverty, across all
regions (United Nations, 2022). However, a lack of digital access
and skills can lead to the exclusion of social protection beneficiaries
who are unable to access online applications or engage with the
government digitally when processes shift online. For instance,
in Pakistan, digital methods were used to administer social cash
assistance payments to support 12 million of the country’s poorest
citizens affected by COVID-19. Citizens were required to send
a text message to an automated system that used an algorithm
to verify their eligibility against a government database. Upon
confirmation, they would receive a text message notifying them
of their eligibility and could withdraw money from a bank or
mobile money agent. Poor rural women were disproportionately
excluded due to limited access to mobile phones and lower levels
of digital literacy, rendering their needs invisible to the state and
underserved (Kemal, 2022).

25
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

©FAO/Erika Santelices

Recipients with limited connectivity may struggle to maintain their

welfare payments when required to recertify or report conditional
activities online (United Nations General Assembly, 2019). A
review conducted by FAO found that digitizing social protection
can reduce administrative costs and enhance the efficiency,
quality and transparency of social protection programmes.
However, the review also revealed that these benefits often go
unrealized and are undermined in rural areas due to low access
to digital technologies, lack of digital skills and payment accounts,
insufficient identification and proof of address, and limited access
to basic infrastructure. These barriers tend to disproportionately
exclude migrants, marginalized ethnic groups, Indigenous Peoples,
older people and women living in rural areas. To promote the
inclusion of rural populations, digital social protection solutions
must be complemented with non-digital service delivery options
(Barattini et al., 2022). Similarly, the UN Special Rapporteur on
Extreme Poverty and Human Rights cautioned against the
transformation of widely used “digital by default” or “digital by
choice” policies into “digital only” practices (United Nations General
Assembly, 2019). Exclusive reliance on digital platforms for social
protection runs the risk of excluding the less fortunate, who are
less likely to have access to technology or may have outdated
equipment with unreliable digital connections (United Nations
General Assembly, 2019). Consistent with the recommendations of

26
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

the FAO and this paper, the Special Rapporteur concluded that
non-digital options are essential and should always be available.
Additionally, he recommended that digital welfare systems be co-
designed and evaluated with intended beneficiaries to minimize
potential harm.

Instead of being designed to meet the needs of women and

marginalized groups, social protection and assistance are
increasingly driven by digital data and technologies that automate,
predict, identify, surveil, detect and target (United Nations General
Assembly, 2019). The design, construction, and operation of the
digital welfare state are largely influenced by technology companies
without input from the individuals whom social protection systems
are intended to assist. This often leads to systems that disempower
those in need rather than empower them, shifting the focus from
reaching entitled individuals to treating them as potential fraudsters
(Eubanks, 2018). This situation arises because many digital systems
assess individuals using data analytics to predict “risk scores,”
automatically disqualifying potential candidates considered to
pose a high risk of fraudulent or criminal activity (United Nations
General Assembly, 2019). Furthermore, machine learning algorithms
have been shown to replicate societal biases and inequalities by
design rather than arriving at objective conclusions that would
minimize the prediction of negative outcomes for marginalized
groups (Crawford, 2013). Digital welfare systems are primarily
driven by cost savings, market-driven efficiency ideals, and fraud
reduction (United Nations General Assembly, 2019). The design,
implementation and evaluation phases of digital welfare states often
do not involve consultation or inclusion of the beneficiaries. The UN
Special Rapporteur emphasizes that due to the relative deprivation
and powerlessness of many welfare recipients, conditions, demands,
and intrusive practices are imposed that would not be accepted
if they were piloted in programmes applicable to more affluent
community members (United Nations General Assembly, 2019).

1.2.3 Digital humanitarian cash payments

Smallholder farmers, who play a significant role in supplying up
to 80 percent of food in Asia and SSA face extreme poverty and
comprise half of the world’s hungry population (Nelson, 2020).
Unfortunately, they are often excluded from social safety nets and
other social protection programmes. Due to their limited financial
resources and capacity to respond to crises, such as climate shocks
(IFAD, 2022), they are disproportionately vulnerable to shocks and
more likely to require assistance during humanitarian crises.

The shift towards cash-based humanitarian assistance, has contributed

to increased digitalization in the humanitarian aid sector. Similar
to digital social protection, digital humanitarian cash payments are
promoted for their potential to be faster, more efficient, transparent,
and secure compared to traditional methods (Better Than Cash
Alliance, 2021). Even before the pandemic, the humanitarian sector
was already transitioning towards providing assistance through cash

27
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

BOX 4
Financial inclusion through digital cash payments:
FAO’s Green Jobs for Rural Youth Employment
Digital tools have been actively utilized under FAO’s two virtual workshops through digital tools and have
Green Jobs for Rural Youth Employment project, been submitting virtual copies of mentoring reports.
which aims to promote green employment for rural The project supports their access to digitalization by
youth in Timor-Leste, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. providing data allowances.
In Zimbabwe, Mukuru, a financial service provider On the other hand, T-pay, a mobile wallet, has been
offering digital money services, is widely used and used for seed money grant disbursement and monthly
known among Zimbabweans. It is currently being wage payments in Timor-Leste. Also, a one-day
used to administer the payment of monthly wages workshop was arranged to efficiently support the rural
and seed money to youth participants in the project. youth beneficiaries with limited digital literacy access
Digitalization efforts do not only involve beneficiaries to the mobile wallet. The session focused on guiding
but also extend to implementing partners. As mentors, the youths to effectively utilize the mobile application
the extension officers supporting the implementation to purchase stuff in the stores and withdraw cash.
of the youth-led Green Start-Ups have attended
Source: FAO. 2024. Green jobs. In: FAO – Decent Rural Employment. Rome. [Link]

and vouchers. In 2019, the amount of humanitarian aid distributed

through cash and vouchers had doubled in comparison to two years
earlier, reaching 17.9 percent of total humanitarian assistance (USD
5.6 billion). Three UN agencies, namely the World Food Programme
(WFP), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), accounted for
half of these humanitarian transfers (CaLP, 2020). Cash transfers
typically take one of four forms:

% Cash in Hand: the distribution of cash in envelopes to beneficiaries

directly.

% Cash as a Service: the use of a financial service provider as an

intermediary who then distributes cash to beneficiaries.

% Cash-Based System: distributing funds through a mobile money

or debit card linked to a banking account.

% Completely digital: digital value received, which can be spent at

digitally-enabled merchants.

Humanitarian aid organizations have increasingly embraced digital

cash transfers as part of the shift towards cash-based assistance.
These digital solutions, particularly cash as a service and cash-
based systems, offer potential benefits such as improved efficiency,
cost reduction, enhanced security and reduced corruption risks
compared to physical cash transfers. However, it is important to
acknowledge that the inclusivity of digital solutions may be limited,
especially for vulnerable populations such as refugees or internally
displaced persons. The Better Than Cash Alliance highlights various
challenges that hinder the inclusion of digital payments for these
groups, including insufficient identification, regulatory barriers to

28
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

financial inclusion, limited mobile connectivity and electricity access,

restricted device ownership and a lack of accessible merchants,
banking agents, or automated teller machines (ATMs) for cash
withdrawal (Better Than Cash Alliance, 2021). Overcoming these
obstacles is crucial to ensure equitable access to humanitarian aid.

Digital tools have been leveraged in humanitarian crises to enhance

inclusion. However, it is recognized that a combination of digital
and in-person approaches is necessary to mitigate the exclusions
that may arise from relying solely on digital tools (Bryant, 2022).
Thus, a comprehensive approach that incorporates diverse delivery
methods is essential to ensure effective and inclusive aid.

During the pandemic, humanitarian organizations have increasingly

adopted biometric verification, social media analytics and satellite
mapping to streamline aid delivery and to reduce costs. However,
there have been concerns raised regarding the exclusion of
individuals who are not active on social media, the neglect of specific
needs of certain groups such as women and persons with limited
mobility or visual impairments, and the potential compromise of
privacy and security for refugee populations (Bryant, 2022). It
is important to involve affected individuals in the design and
ideation phases of digital systems in the humanitarian sector
to ensure their needs and preferences are considered and to
It is important address potential unintended consequences.
to involve affected In summary, while digital solutions offer opportunities
individuals in the for improving humanitarian aid delivery, it is essential
design and ideation to address challenges related to inclusivity, privacy
and accountability. By adopting collaborative and
phases of digital participatory approaches and considering a mix of digital
systems. and in-person methods, the humanitarian sector can strive
to ensure that digitalization efforts align with the needs and
rights of those in need.

1.3 Digitalization
of education
Levels of education impact smallholder earnings and their
likelihoods of adopting technology. As mentioned by the World
Bank (2019a), better-educated farmers are more likely to engage in
digital agriculture than farmers with lower levels of education. They
are also more likely to have improved outcomes (such as output
or productivity); for example, because of their enhanced ability
to combine inputs effectively on larger plots of land (Ninh, 2020),
or because of their greater propensity for adopting modern crop
varieties (Paltasingh and Goyari, 2018). Returns to education are
especially high for female smallholder farmers, for whom each
additional year of schooling can add between 2 to 15 percent in
agricultural gains (Lattanzio, Maroun and Rewald, 2017).

29
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Moreover, increasing women’s educational attainment benefits

everyone’s food security. Improvements in women’s education
were responsible for 43 percent of the total reduction of hunger
in developing countries between 1970 and 1995 (Smith and
Haddad, 2001).

The shift to remote learning during the pandemic had a significant

impact on children and youth, disrupting their access to education
and learning outcomes in ways that will have implications decades
later on poverty reduction and food security. Remote education
was widely seen as the way to limit pandemic-induced learning
disruptions, with 186 countries introducing remote learning
programmes during the onset of the pandemic (World Bank,
UNESCO and UNICEF, 2021). However, access to remote education,
specifically online education, was unequal.

World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF (2021) found significant remote

learning exclusion disparities between and within countries.
“Globally, at least 463 million children could not be reached by digital
and broadcast remote learning programmes amidst school closures,
with three out of four unreached students coming from rural areas
and/or poor households” (World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF, 2021,
p. 22). Moreover, LDCs were home to a disproportionate share
of students who could not be reached through remote learning.
Even when education was offered through broadcast media,
children living in rural areas were still significantly less likely to
own televisions and have access to the electricity necessary to
access educational content. For example, only 26 percent of rural
households in West and Central Africa owned televisions compared
to 73 percent of urban households (World Bank, UNESCO and
UNICEF, 2021; UNICEF, 2021a).

Pre-COVID-19, students in rural areas were already disadvantaged

by schools with less digital equipment, internet access, and teachers
who were lacking preparation to use ICT in teaching (OECD, 2022).
Disparities in remote learning access and preparedness led to
uneven learning losses across and within countries. Students from
LICs, LMICs, rural areas, and disadvantaged areas experienced
greater learning losses (World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF, 2021).
For example, Ethiopia developed a primary school distance
learning programme in March 2020 using a mix of remote learning
channels including TV, radio, and digital platforms (Sewunet, 2020).
Once schools reopened in October 2020, children from rural and
urban areas returned to school at a similar rate, but the learning
gap between primary school students from rural and urban areas
widened, with students from rural areas experiencing greater
learning losses (Kim et al., 2021).

30
 1 Digitalization across sectors in rural areas

BOX 5
AYA platform offers youth smallholders
networking opportunities and training on how
to leverage social media
The AYA (African Youth Agripreneurs) platform online community management. These ambassadors
provides networking opportunities, knowledge are intended to become community leaders within
sharing and peer-learning opportunities for young agrifood systems.
agripreneurs and rural youth organizations across In collaboration with WYLDE International and Meta
Africa. The platform has seen significant growth, with Inc (formerly Facebook), FAO has provided training
a membership of 3 213 youth, including approximately sessions for 210 youth on how to grow a business using
40 percent women, from all African countries. Since social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram
July 2022, the platform has experienced a monthly and WhatsApp. Additionally, FAO partnered with the
growth rate of 28.6 percent. Africa Women Agribusiness Network (AWAN Afrika)
One of the key focuses of the AYA platform is to to deliver agribusiness training to approximately 80
develop the digital skills of rural youth and young young women from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. This
agripreneurs at various levels, including basic, training utilized a hybrid format, combining face-
intermediate and advanced skills. Through the AYA to-face and online sessions, facilitated through the
ambassadors’ programme, FAO has trained 24 African AYA platform.
youth in digital storytelling, content creation and

Remote learning was found to be especially disadvantageous for

rural youth from marginalized backgrounds. Remote learning also
widened learning gaps between wealth groups, between boys
and girls, and between able-bodied children and children living
with disabilities (Ahlgren et al., 2022; Human Rights Watch, 2021).
Students attending private schools and students from better-
off socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to benefit
from family members with higher levels of education who were
able to aid their learning efforts (Goudeau et al., 2021; World
Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF, 2021). Students attending schools
predominantly serving students from marginalized backgrounds
also experienced disproportionate learning losses (World Bank,
UNESCO and UNICEF, 2021). Although schools have reopened,
unequal remote learning access could disadvantage rural children
again in the future. UNICEF (2021b) found that about half of LICs
and LMICs are unprepared to deliver learning remotely during
future emergency school closures.

31
Sri Lanka
In Mahailuppallama, FAO team introduced
the new Fall Armyworm Monitoring and
Early Warning System (FAMEWS) mobile
application to farmers.
©FAO/Lekha Edirisinghe
 2 THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE IN RURAL
CONTEXTS AND ITS
CHARACTERISTICS
DIGITAL DIVIDE:
binary gaps in access or THIS SECTION PROVIDES A DEEP DIVE
ownership of a specific INTO THE MECHANISMS through which digital disparities in access
technology or infrastructure and outcomes manifest themselves in rural contexts in the form
(Helsper, 2021), also of the three levels of the digital divide. While the terms “digital
known as “basic access” divide,” “digital inequality,” and “digital exclusion” are often used
(A4AI, 2022). The digital interchangeably, it is important to differentiate between these
divide as traditionally defined concepts as they encompass distinct dynamics (see definitions on
is mainly captured in the the left).
first-level digital divide under
the three levels of the digital
While digital divide, inequality and exclusion are interconnected, it
divide framework.
is important to note that being affected by one does not necessarily
DIGITAL INEQUALITY: imply being affected by all three. Individuals may experience
differences in usage patterns different levels of digital disparities depending on their specific
and abilities to make use circumstances.
of digital technologies
including after-access
For instance, someone may not encounter first-level digital divides if
barriers (Helsper, 2021;
Hernandez and Faith, 2022).
they have access to technology but may still face digital inequality
Digital inequalities are mainly if they have limited opportunities to utilize it effectively. On the
captured in the second- and other hand, non-users may experience digital divides but not be
third-level digital divides digitally excluded, as exclusion arises when lack of access prevents
under the three levels of the meaningful participation.
digital divide framework.
DIGITAL INCLUSION/
As highlighted in the introduction, digital inclusion is influenced
EXCLUSION: whether by three key factors: the extent of digitalization in sectors relevant
an individual has the to the well-being of rural populations, the availability of offline
sufficient amount of digital alternatives to access services and opportunities in those sectors,
access, skills, and quality and the presence of digital divides. The level of access, skills, and
of access required to fully quality of technology required for full participation in society
participate in society (Martin, varies based on the specific context and evolves over time.
Hope and Zubairi, 2016;
Schejter et al., 2015;
Warren, 2007).

33
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

FIGURE 6
The three factors that lead to digital exclusion when combined

Digitalization
of services, Absence of Persistence of
opportunities offline options digital divides
and processes

DIGITAL EXCLUSION

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

As sectors within societies increasingly undergo digitalization and

offline options diminish, individuals face growing expectations to
engage with technology. However, this process is not always linear,
as digital solutions can encounter setbacks, and citizens may resist
digitalization processes that they perceive as disempowering
Gender- and
(Kuntsman and Miyake, 2022).
marginalized-group- Providing Addressing
sensitive offline options digital divides
To understand the risk of digital exclusion faced by rural populations
digitalization
in deprived rural areas, delving deeper into the access and after-
access barriers they encounter is essential. Extensive research
spanning over 25 years has demonstrated that digital exclusion
arises not only from digital divides but also from digital inequalities,
which are multidimensional and dynamic (Heeks, 2022; Ragnedda
and Ruiu, 2017; Schradie, 2011; van Deursen and Helsper, 2015).
One widely recognized conceptual framework for understanding
digital inequalities is the “three
DIGITAL levels of digital divide” typology
INCLUSION
(Ragnedda and Ruiu, 2017; van Deursen and Helsper, 2015).

This section contextualizes digital divides in rural areas of LICs

and LMICs, focusing on the experiences of rural women when
data is available. While some official surveys may cover elements
and aspects that cut across multiple levels, there is a prevailing
tendency among development organizations to primarily focus on
the first level of the digital divide, with limited emphasis on the
second level (e.g. digital skills). This includes country-level surveys
conducted by governments, which often measure certain elements
of the second-level digital divide, such as frequency of use, but
fail to fully consider the barriers that users may encounter once
they are online, which can restrict further usage (Hernandez and
Faith, 2022).

34
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

FIGURE 7
The three levels of the digital divide

DIGITAL DIVIDE
FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL
Basic access/ Quality of access/ Structural inequalities
binary gaps after-access barriers (root causes) leading
• Gaps in usage • Usage patterns to uneven gains
• Gaps in ownership • Speed • Economic resources
• Barriers to gaining • (Un)limited data • Human capital
access (e.g. awareness, • Continuous access • Social capital
affordability, basic • Skills • Social norms
infrastructure, • User autonomy • Civic and political
electricity, • Reliance on others influence
identification, etc.) • Device quality • Local instituional
• Safety and security capacity
• Functioning of local
markets
• Representation

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

To effectively address digital exclusion in rural areas and confront

the spatial inequalities that digitalization may exacerbate,
development actors must begin to address elements from the
second and third levels of the digital divide. Currently, data often
lacks disaggregation by rurality or gender, and there is a lack of
data for other marginalized rural groups, such as young people,
persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, older persons,
migrants, displaced people, and community/local organizations.

It is crucial to develop surveys that comprehensively account for

the second- and third-level digital divides and ensure disaggregated
data is available to capture the experiences of marginalized
rural groups. Furthermore, data that further disaggregates rural
regions beyond the simple urban vs rural binary is also limited.
For instance, data on rural areas is rarely broken down according
to the “development domain,” which considers factors such as
agricultural potential, access to markets, and population density in
distinguishing between rural areas and shaping their development
trajectories (Abay et al., 2020; Chamberlin, Pender and Yu, 2006).

35
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

2.1 Gaps in access to

digital technology
The first level of the digital divide focuses on the disparities
between individuals with access to digital technology and those
without access. Official surveys, such as those conducted by the
ITU and national surveys, primarily measure the first-level digital
divide by examining the binary difference between internet users
and non-users. These surveys typically ask whether individuals
have used the internet in the past three months or whether they
own specific digital devices or connectivity subscriptions. The
metrics used for device ownership or specific internet activities,
such as social media usage, are also often measured.

However, relying solely on this binary distinction is insufficient

to gauge the risk of digital exclusion. Once individuals are online,
they may still encounter after-access barriers that hinder their
continuous and autonomous use of the internet. Therefore, it is
essential to consider the second- and third-level digital divides
Relying solely to fully understand the extent of digital exclusion.
on data on binary For example, when the ITU reports that residents in rural
gaps in access is areas are only half as likely to be online compared to their
urban counterparts or that men in LDCs are more likely to be
insufficient to gauge online than women, they are referring to the first-level digital
the risk of digital divide (ITU, 2021a). These disparities are well-documented
across various aspects of digital connectivity infrastructure,
exclusion. devices and digital activities between urban and rural areas.

The following subsections will summarize the available data and

evidence on the first-level digital divide, including the barriers
commonly associated with it.

2.1.1 Gaps in basic internet usage

According to the ITUs “Internet use estimates” dataset, which is the
only publicly available internationally comparable dataset on ICT
use in urban and rural areas, 59.1 percent of individuals worldwide
used the internet at least once in the last three months leading up
to the survey conducted in 2020 (ITU, 2021b). The data reveals
significant disparities in basic internet access between regions and
urban and rural areas. In general, rural residents had about half
the likelihood of having basic internet access compared to urban
residents (see Figure 8 below).

The extent of this divide varies across regions and country income
levels. While the gap between urban and rural residents in developed
countries is relatively small, with urban residents only slightly more
likely to be online, the gap is much wider in developing countries,
where urban residents are more than twice as likely to have basic
internet access compared to rural residents. The divide is even more
pronounced in LDCs, where urban residents are over four times
as likely to have used the internet compared to rural residents.

36
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

Similar disparities are observed in Small Island Developing States

(SIDS), Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Arab States11 (see Figure 9 below).

FIGURE 8
Percentage of individuals using the internet at least once in the last three
months, by urban–rural area in each geographic region in 2020
100
88 89
85
80 76 77
72 73 71
63
59 61 59
Percentage (%)

60
53 53
49 47
39
40
34 32 32
25
20 18
13
5
0
World Developed Developing Least Landlocked Small Island
developed developing Developing
countries countries States

Total Urban Rural Urban–rural gap

Note: The urban rural gap was arrived at using the following formula:
1 - (rural internet users / urban internet users).
Source: ITU. 2021. Statistics. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024].
[Link]

FIGURE 9
Percentage of individuals using the internet, by urban–rural area in each
geographic region in 2020
100

83 85 85 87
79 80 80
80 76 75
70 69
62
60
Percentage (%)

60 56
50
48
42 45
40
39

30 28

20 19
15
8

0
Africa Americas Arab states Asia–Pacific CIS Europe

Total Urban Rural Urban–rural gap

Note: CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States

Source: ITU. 2021. Statistics. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024].

11 The term ‘Arab States’ refers to the classification: in ITU. 2024. Economy classifications. In:
ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 3 April 2024]. [Link]
definitions/[Link]

37
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

[Link]
The ITU also provides access data disaggregated by sex, but
this information is available only for 118 countries. Among these
countries, only 22 have provided intersectional data on sex and
rurality. These 22 countries include 2 LICs (Mozambique and
Ethiopia) and 11 LMICs (Algeria, Bhutan, the Plurinational State of
Bolivia, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras,
Palestine, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe). Across these 13 LICs
and LMICs, urban residents were more than twice as likely to have
basic internet access compared to rural residents (ITU, 2021b).

While there are significant gaps between urban men and women
and rural men and women, the disparities are smaller compared
to the gaps between people living in urban and rural areas.
Urban women were nearly three times as likely to have basic
internet access compared to rural women and urban men were
more than twice as likely to have basic access compared to men
living in rural areas. The largest gap in the analysed countries
exists between urban men and rural women, highlighting the
presence of a “triple divide” encountered by women (FAO, 2018a).
Therefore, rural women experience intersectional disadvantages
in accessing basic internet services, as they face lower overall
access rates in rural areas, and gender gaps are more pronounced
in rural settings.

While there is publicly available data on youth with basic internet

access (having used the internet at least once in the past three
months), there is a lack of similar data for other age groups,
including older people. The ITU provides data tables comparing the
percentage of youth classified as internet users compared to the
rest of the population. However, this data includes countries with
varying definitions of youth, making it unreliable for comparing
basic internet usage across countries, regions and income groups.
Different countries have different age ranges for defining youth,
such as ages 1 to 25 or beginning at ages 5, 15, etc. Additionally,
some countries set the upper age limit for “youth” at, before or
after 25. The ITU’s youth data also lacks further disaggregation
by gender or region type. Furthermore, the ITU does not provide
age-specific data beyond the categorization of “youth” and the
rest of the population, resulting in a gap in understanding basic
internet access for older people.

The ITU does not disaggregate its data by poverty level or

within‑country income distribution. However, an analysis
conducted by GSMA reveals that the basic internet access gap
between the richest and poorest 20 percent of the population is
significantly wider in LICs, LMICs and LDCs compared to HICs
(GSMA, 2022a).

38
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

FIGURE 10
Binary access gap between the poorest and richest
20 percent across country income groups
70
64
60

50 49

Percentage (%)
40

30

20

11
10

0
HICs LICs and LDCs
LMICs
Connectivity gap

Note: HICs - high-income countries; LICs - low-income countries; LMICs - lower

middle-income countries; LDCs - least developed countries
Source: GSMA. 2022. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2022. London.
[Link]

In addition to the limited data availability on regions, gender

and unreliable youth data, there is a lack of publicly available
internationally comparable data disaggregated by other dimensions
of marginalization. This creates significant gaps in understanding
the digital access levels of Indigenous Peoples, ethnic and racial
minorities, migrants, people living in poverty, people living with
disabilities and other marginalized groups. Policymakers and
programme designers face challenges in addressing the digital
divide without comprehensive and comparable data on
these groups, intersecting various dimensions of
There are marginalization.

significant data Furthermore, current internationally comparable

gaps regarding digital statistics on digital access tend to be binary
in nature, even when disaggregated by
access levels of Indigenous demographic groups or areas. These statistics
Peoples, ethnic and racial classify anyone as an internet user if they have
used the internet at least once in the past three
minorities, migrants, months. As a result, the ITU’s ‘internet user’
people living in poverty, metric provides only a limited perspective on
the first-level digital divide. There is a clear
people living with need for internationally comparable statistics
disabilities and other that capture the nuances of the second and
third-level digital divides discussed in Sections
marginalized 2.2 and 2.3.
groups.

39
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

2.1.2 Binary gaps in device ownership and app usage

In addition to disparities in internet usage, digital divides also exist
in terms of mobile phone access and ownership, as well as access
to other digital devices and specific applications. Rural dwellers,
in particular women and other marginalized groups, often face
barriers to accessing and owning mobile phones and specific digital
devices and applications. For example, women are 7 percent less
likely to own a mobile phone and 18 percent less likely to own a
smartphone compared to men (GSMA, 2022b). There are notable
variations in mobile ownership across regions, with residents in
LDCs, LICs, and LMICs being less likely to own mobile phones
compared to the global average (see Figure 11 below). Although
there is a lack of internationally comparable data specifically
disaggregated by type of region, studies conducted across
different countries indicate that rural residents are generally less
likely to own mobile phones and smartphones compared to their
urban counterparts (Kronke, 2020).

Furthermore, digital divides are evident in the usage of specific

applications. A study by Tsan et al. (2019) revealed that women
constitute only 25 percent of African digital agriculture users,

FIGURE 11
Percentage of individuals owning a mobile phone
World 73

Africa 61

Americas 88

Arab states 81

Asia-Pacific 67

Commonwealth of Independent States 91

Europe 93

Low income 49

Lower middle-income 65

Upper middle-income 76

High income 95

Least Developed Countries 58

Landlocked Developing Countries 61

Small Island Developing States 75

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage (%)

Source: ITU. 2022. Facts and Figures 2022. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024].
[Link]

40
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

despite accounting for 40–50 percent of smallholder farmers on

the continent. There is also a disparity in mobile money account
ownership, particularly among rural residents, with rural women
facing additional challenges due to a gender gap in account
ownership (GSMA, 2022c). The gender gap in mobile money
ownership tends to be more pronounced in rural areas.

Disaggregated data on the first-level digital divide can shed light

on how intersecting inequalities can further disadvantage certain
groups whose struggles may otherwise go unnoticed. For instance,
in Indonesia, overall ownership of mobile money accounts may
appear to be equal between men and women at the country level.
However, when examined at the rural level, it becomes evident
that rural men are significantly more likely to own a mobile money
account compared to rural women (see Table 4 below).

TABLE 4
Mobile money account ownership gaps entire country vs rural areas
COUNTRY COUNTRY-LEVEL GENDER GAP RURAL GENDER GAP

Egypt 35% 54%

Kenya 7% 7%

Nigeria 46% 71%

Senegal 14% 18%

Bangladesh 52% 54%

India 68% 78%

Indonesia -1% 33%

Pakistan 71% 70%

Source: GSMA. 2022. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2022. London.
[Link]

2.1.3 Binary gaps in network coverage

Statistics also highlight disparities in the availability of digital
infrastructure. According to the ITU, 97 percent of the global
population is covered by a mobile signal, with 100 percent coverage
in urban areas compared to 93 percent in rural areas (ITU, 2021a).
However, the availability of mobile signals is not uniform, and rural
areas in developing countries have lower coverage compared to
rural areas in developed countries. In particular, rural areas in
LDCs and SIDS are especially less likely to be covered by a mobile
signal. It is important to note that coverage by a mobile signal
includes 2G signals, which may not be sufficient for certain digital

41
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

applications. Furthermore, these disparities are more evident for

newer and faster mobile infrastructure such as 4G and 5G (refer to
Section 2.2.2 for more details).

The existence of such divides can be attributed to the fact

that digital infrastructure deployment is typically driven by
private telecommunications companies, who prioritize serving
profitable and easily accessible markets (Tsan et al., 2019; United
Nations, 2022; United Nations Secretary-General, 2020b). Rural
and remote areas, particularly those that are more deprived and
have lower purchasing power and population densities, are often
considered unprofitable and thus less likely to be served by digital
infrastructure or tend to receive it at a later stage compared to
more affluent areas (Aldashev and Batkeyev, 2021; Prieger, 2003;
Trendov, Varas and Zeng, 2019a).

In countries where telecommunications infrastructure deployment

is mainly undertaken by state-owned enterprises, governments
may practise “ethnic favouritism,” prioritizing areas where
politically influential ethnic groups reside while excluding
minority groups strategically. This is driven by concerns that
increased internet access for politically marginalized groups
could lead to political mobilization or civil unrest (United
Nations, 2022; Weidmann et al., 2016). As a result, rural areas with
a high concentration of racial, religious and ethnic minorities and
Indigenous Peoples may experience deliberate digital exclusion.

TABLE 5
Population covered by a mobile signal (at least 2G) in 2021
disaggregated by type of region
COUNTRY INCOME GROUP URBAN RURAL

World 100% 93%

Developed 100% 98.6%

Developing 100% 92.5%

Least developed countries 100% 84.8%

Land locked developing countries 100% 91.2%

Small Island Developing States 99.9% 76.9%

Source: ITU. 2022. Facts and Figures 2022. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024].
[Link]

42
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

2.1.4 Barriers to gaining basic access

The first-level digital divide encompasses barriers to usage,
including cost and affordability, awareness, lack of locally relevant
content and motivational factors (GSMA, 2016a). While awareness
of the internet is relatively high in most countries, it remains a
significant barrier to mobile internet usage. In India and Bangladesh,
only 60 percent and 70 percent of the populations were aware of
the internet in 2021, despite the pace of digitalization during the
pandemic (GSMA, 2022a).

Affordability of handsets and mobile data is a major hindrance

to internet adoption. The median cost of an entry-level internet-
enabled device averaged 19 percent of monthly gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita across LMICs in 2021, with higher costs
in SSA and South Asia (GSMA, 2022a). In SSA, the cost of an entry-
level internet-enabled device exceeds the average monthly income
of the poorest 20 percent of the population. Similarly, the cost of
1 gigabit of data amounts to an average of 1.7 percent of monthly
GDP per capita in LICs and LMICs, but is significantly higher in
Africa (GSMA, 2022a).

FIGURE 12
Price of an entry-level internet-enabled device (might not be a smartphone)
in 2021 as a percentage of GDP per capita by income distribution
120

105
100

80 75
Percentage (%)

68

60 54
52
48
39 40
40 37 34 35
29 27
26 25
23
20 18 17 19
14
10

0
East Asia Europe Latin America Near East South Sub-Saharan Global
and the and Central and the and North Asia Africa (all lower
Pacific Asia Caribbean Africa middle-income
countries)
Average Poorest 40% Poorest 20%

Source: GSMA. 2022. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2022. London.
[Link]

Handsets and data are particularly unaffordable for the poor and for
women. It is worth noting that the GSMA’s definition of “entry-level
internet-enabled devices” includes feature phones and some low-
cost smartphones, which may not provide a satisfactory internet
experience, as further discussed in Sections 2.3.8 and 2.3.9.

43
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

FIGURE 13
Price of an entry-level internet-enabled device (might not be smartphone)
in 2021 as a percentage of GDP per capita by sex
60
56

50

40
35
Percentage (%)

31
30
25 25
22 23 23
22
20 18 19 19
17
15 15
13 13 14
10 9
10 8

0
East Asia Europe Latin America Near East South Sub-Saharan Global
and the and Central and the and North Asia Africa (all lower
Pacific Asia Caribbean Africa middle-income
countries)
Average Women Men

Source: GSMA. 2022. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2022. London.
[Link]

FIGURE 14
Price of 1 GB of data in 2021 as a percentage of GDP per capita
by sex and income
14

12

10
Percentage (%)

0
East Asia Europe Latin America Near East South Sub-Saharan Global
and the and Central and the and North Asia Africa (all lower
Pacific Asia Caribbean Africa middle-income
countries)
Average Women Men Poorest 40% Poorest 20%

Source: GSMA. 2022. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2022. London.
[Link]

44
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

Affordability issues disproportionately affect people living in

rural areas, considering that over 80 percent of those living in
extreme income poverty and 75 percent of those in moderate
poverty reside in rural areas (Castaneda et al., 2016). Limited
resources often lead individuals to rely on prepaid options, which
are more expensive than post-paid connectivity in the long
run (Isenberg, 2019). It is worth noting that while the GSMA
provides affordability data for 1 gigabyte (GB) of data, it does not
disaggregate affordability for larger quantities of data (e.g. 5 GB
or unlimited data), which as shown in Section 2.2.3, would offer
users better quality digital experiences.

FIGURE 15
Average price of 5 GB of data as a percentage of GDP per capita
(further disaggregation not made available)
8
7.9

5
Percentage (%)

3 2.8 2.8
2.5
2 1.8 1.6
1.3
1

0
East Asia Europe Latin America Near East South Sub-Saharan Global
and the and Central and the and North Asia Africa (all lower
Pacific Asia Caribbean Africa middle-income
countries)
Average

Source: GSMA. 2022. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2022. London.
[Link]

Safety and security concerns are significant barriers that can lead
non-users to self-exclude from using the internet, due to fears of
harassment, fraud, online theft, and data insecurity (GSMA, 2022a).
According to the GSMA, the number of non-users citing safety
and security concerns as a barrier to adoption has been increasing
in many countries, with over 70 percent of non-users in Mexico
and Guatemala affected by this barrier. The lack of relevant digital
content, services, and products that meet their interests or needs is
another reason why some individuals choose not to use the internet
(GSMA, 2022a).

45
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Furthermore, language and content accessibility pose challenges

to digital inclusion. As of December 2022, 58.6 percent of internet
content is in English, and the top 10 languages (sorted by percentage
from largest to smallest: Russian 5.3 percent, Spanish 4.4 percent,
French 3.8 percent, German 3.7 percent, Japanese 3.1 percent,
Turkish 2.7 percent, Persian 2.3 percent, Chinese 1.6 percent, Italian
1.6 percent) account for nearly 90 percent of all content on the
World Wide Web (W3Techs, 2022).

The GSMA’s Mobile Connectivity Index measures the existence of

locally relevant content and the availability of content in local national
languages, among other indicators. The index reveals significant
regional disparities, with HICs having more locally relevant content
available in national languages compared to developing regions
(GSMA, 2022b). It is important to note that language diversity
within countries and the fact that some groups may not speak
the dominant national language can further exacerbate the lack of
locally relevant content, particularly impacting rural populations.

FIGURE 16
Average connectivity index score for local relevance and availability
of content in local languages 2021

High-income countries

East Asia and the Pacific

Europe and Central Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Near East and North Africa

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage (%)

Content availability in local language Local relevance of content

Source: GSMA. 2022. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2022. London.
[Link]

Access to electricity is crucial for charging portable devices,

powering Wi-Fi networks and using personal computers (PCs),
all of which are essential for digital connectivity. However, rural
areas in LICs and LMICs often have limited access to electricity
(World Bank, 2022b). Certain regions, such as SSA, face significant
challenges with 77 percent of people without access to electricity
residing in this region, particularly in rural areas (UN Statistics
Division, 2022). SSA and Oceania exhibit the lowest levels of rural
electric connectivity globally (UN Statistics Division, 2022; World
Bank, 2022b). It is important to note that access to electricity is
not solely reliant on connection to the electrical grid; affordability

46
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

also plays a crucial role. Even when electricity is available, issues

of affordability can hinder its uptake. Additionally, consistent
power outages can make digital connectivity unreliable and
unpredictable. While solar and other renewable energy sources
exist, their availability and affordable financing mechanisms are
not widely accessible in rural areas (World Bank, 2022c).

In many countries, obtaining a SIM card for mobile broadband

access requires presenting official identification. Unfortunately, this
practice creates a barrier that excludes a significant number of
people. It is estimated that nearly 1 billion people lack identification,
with the majority (90 percent) residing in LICs and LMICs (Clark,
Metz and Casher, 2021; GSMA, 2021a). This disproportionately
affects refugees, women, individuals in rural areas and other
marginalized groups, as they are less likely to possess identification
documents (Privacy International, 2021a).

For those without identification, registering a SIM card becomes a

significant challenge. In fact, individuals without identification have
reported that obtaining a SIM card is more difficult than accessing
government support or participating in elections (Clark, Metz and
Casher, 2021). This issue not only excludes marginalized groups
from digital connectivity but also infringes upon their rights.
Furthermore, identification requirements can be manipulated by
governments to intentionally exclude racial, ethnic and religious
minorities. The governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh, for
example, have utilized identification requirements as a means
of keeping the Rohingya community offline due to their lack of
identification documents (Chong, 2017; Privacy International, 2021b).

FIGURE 17
Percentage of people who lack identification experiencing difficulties
accessing rights, services and opportunities in 2021

50

42
40 39 37
34 34
32
31 30 31 29 31 30 31
Percentage (%)

30 28 28
25
23 23
20

10

0
Government Financial SIM card Elections Job Medical
support services
World Low-income country Lower middle-income country

Source: Clark, J., Metz, A. & Casher, C. 2021. ID4D Global Dataset 2021, Volume 1: Global ID
coverage estimates. Washington, DC, World Bank. [Link]

47
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Groups such as rural residents, women, youth, individuals with

lower levels of education, and the unemployed are among those
less likely to possess identification (Clark, Metz and Casher, 2021).
While intersectional data is not readily available, it is reasonable to
assume that individuals from rural areas who belong to multiple
marginalized groups face even greater challenges in obtaining a
SIM card due to the lack of identification.

FIGURE 18
Groups less likely to have identification documents in low-coverage countries
(percent less likely than the rest of population, 2021)

Age (15–24)

Primary school or less

Out of workforce

Rural

Bottom 40%

Women

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

Percentage (%)

Gap

Note: Groups are compared against the rest of the population as follows: women vs men; bottom
40 percent vs top 60 percent; rural vs urban; out of workforce vs in workforce; primary school or
less vs more than primary school; 15–24 vs 25+.
Source: Clark, J., Metz, A. & Casher, C. 2021. ID4D Global Dataset 2021, Volume 1: Global ID
coverage estimates. Washington, DC, World Bank. [Link]

Women and other marginalized groups face additional barriers to

connectivity, as documented by Delaporte (2021). In male-dominated
societies, social norms can act as a significant barrier for women in
rural areas, where it may be considered inappropriate for them to
use or own mobile phones (APC, 2018). Women who defy these
norms may face backlash in the form of gossip, cyberbullying, or
even physical violence (Girl Effect, 2018; Hölzl, 2021). It is important
to acknowledge that some individuals may choose to self-exclude
from digital spaces due to personal preferences or disagreements
with the prevailing private or geopolitical interests driving
digitalization or simply because they prefer in-person interactions
(Helsper, 2021; Lewis, 2017).

48
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

2.2 Going
beyond binaries
The second-level digital divide goes beyond the binary distinction
between digital technology users and non-users, taking into
account the differences among those who have access. As societies
increasingly rely on digital interactions for economic, social, political,
and civic activities, understanding these differences becomes
crucial (Helsper, 2021; Hernandez and Roberts, 2018). The COVID-19
pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns and social distancing
measures have further emphasized the importance of considering
factors beyond binary gaps. A notable example is the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom),
a highly digitalized society where 95 percent of the population are
considered “internet users” (OFCOM, 2021). However, a significant
portion of the population lacked access to internet speeds that
were sufficient for seamless remote work or online learning
(Global Wireless Solutions, 2020; Office for Students, 2020). This
highlights how differences in quality and user capabilities within
highly digitalized societies can lead to digital exclusion, despite
the majority being classified as “internet users.” Policymakers,
employers, and educational institutions could have anticipated
People living these challenges by paying more attention to the after-
access digital inequalities and barriers. Moreover, people
in rural areas, living in rural areas, women and other marginalized groups
are more likely to experience these barriers.
women and other
marginalized groups This subsection provides a glimpse into this issue,
but further research is needed to comprehensively
are more likely to understand the factors that continue to hinder the
experience after- empowerment of individuals in rural areas, even after
gaining internet access. Societies undergoing rapid
access barriers. digitization can learn from the conceptual shortcomings
observed during the COVID-19 pandemic in highly digitalized
societies. By shifting focus from solely addressing binary
digital gaps (first-level digital divide) to jointly addressing issues
of quality, skills and autonomy from the outset, policymakers and
organizations can better navigate potential exclusions that may
arise from digitization.

2.2.1 Usage patterns

Once access to the internet is obtained, the frequency and range
of activities that individuals engage in online can vary significantly.
Merely having basic access to technology does not guarantee
prolonged or effective use, and individuals from marginalized
backgrounds tend to use digital technologies less frequently and for
a limited number of activities compared to those from privileged
backgrounds (Girl Effect, 2018; Gurstein, 2011; Schradie, 2011). In
some countries, many smartphone owners, particularly women, do
not use the internet (GSMA, 2022b). A study by FAO highlighted
that even when women own phones, they use them less often

49
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

than men and access fewer services beyond voice communication

(Isenberg, 2019). Limited users often develop a preference for
essential activities, missing out on opportunities for learning,
exploration, and creative use of technology (Girl Effect, 2018;
Robinson, 2009).

A study conducted by Girl Effect (2018) across 25 countries in

Africa, Asia, Latin America, North America, and the Near East
found that girls were more likely than boys to have access to
mobile devices through borrowing rather than ownership. This
discrepancy in ownership had significant implications for how
boys and girls used phones, with boys engaging in a wider range
of activities compared to girls. Similarly, GSMA (2021a) found an
urban–rural gap in mobile phone activities. Rural residents with
access were less likely to shop online, access health education or
use digital financial services compared to their urban counterparts.
Moreover, when rural users did engage in these activities, they did
so less frequently than urban users (GSMA, 2021).

Research by Kronke (2020) in 34 African countries revealed

that urban residents were more likely to use mobile phones and
the internet on a regular basis compared to rural residents. The
difference in usage frequency was significant, with 48 percent
of urban residents reporting frequent usage compared to only
18 percent of rural residents.

Marginalized groups also tend to underutilize the features and

opportunities offered by specific digital applications. In Kenya,
for example, the percentage of people utilizing advanced mobile
money features (such as saving, paying bills, receiving wages, and
obtaining loans) was lower than the number of active users, which
was itself lower than the number of registered users (See Figure 19
below). Rural residents, individuals below the poverty line, women,
and those with primary education or lower were found to be less
likely to be advanced users (InterMedia, 2016).

Mobile money users from marginalized backgrounds also relied

more on accessing mobile money through someone else’s account.
In Kenya, women, rural residents, and youth were significantly
more likely to rely on over-the-counter usage compared to men,
urban residents and individuals above the age of 35. Unregistered
mobile money users were predominantly rural residents, females,
and those living below the poverty line (See Figure 20 below). On
the other hand, active users (those who had used their account
in the last 90 days) were more likely to be male, urban residents,
employed, and living above the poverty line (InterMedia, 2016).

50
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

FIGURE 19
Mobile money users in Kenya by type of access, 2016
90
81
80

70 67
60
60

Percentage (%)
50
43
40

30

20

10

0
Any access Registered Active Advanced
(incl. over-the- users users users
counter)
Percentage of users

Source: InterMedia. 2016. Kenya: Wave 4 Report FII Tracker Survey. Financial Inclusion Insights.
Washington, DC, InterMedia and Seattle, USA, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [Link]
com/37frb3jr

FIGURE 20
Over-the-counter mobile money users by key demographics in Kenya, 2016
90
83
80

70 66
61
60
Percentage (%)

50

40
39
34
30

20 17

10

0
Women Men Rural Urban Youth Over
residents residents 35 years old

Over-the-counter reliance

Source: InterMedia. 2016. Kenya: Wave 4 Report FII Tracker Survey. Financial Inclusion Insights.
Washington, DC, InterMedia and Seattle, USA, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [Link]
com/37frb3jr

51
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

2.2.2 Speeds
Internet connections vary in terms of speed and quality, with
some providing seamless streaming and video calling capabilities,
while others limit possibilities through slower speeds where even
loading text-based web pages can take minutes. The difference
in internet connection experiences was highlighted by an Open
Data expert who described the contrast between those with
fast and stable connections and those whose connections are so
slow that downloading a dataset takes longer than cooking rice
(Canares, 2015).

A study conducted in 2014 revealed that people in LMICs faced a

moving target when it came to accessing internet speeds comparable
to those available in HICs. While the gap in binary internet uptake
appeared to be narrowing between HICs and LMICs, the difference
in speeds experienced by users from HICs was growing at a much
faster rate than the speeds available in LMICs (Hilbert, 2014). As
a result, users in developing countries often found themselves
playing catch-up as new technologies emerged before they
People in LMICs could fully access and benefit from previous ones (Trendov,
face a moving Varas and Zeng, 2019a).

target when it comes In rural areas, mobile infrastructure is generally more

accessible and cost-effective to deploy compared
to accessing internet to high-speed fibre-optic internet cables. However,
speeds comparable significant gaps in coverage remain, particularly for
the latest high-speed infrastructure. The United Nations
to those available framework on universal and meaningful connectivity
in HICs. recognizes the importance of high-quality infrastructure
that provides fast and reliable connections (United Nations
Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology and
ITU, 2021). The deployment of modern telecommunications
infrastructure in rural areas is not a linear process, as it requires
the installation of new infrastructure or the upgrading of existing
infrastructure. The urban–rural gaps in coverage for newer
generations of telecommunication infrastructure are often wider
than those for older technologies (See Figure 21 below).

As depicted in the graphic, significant portions of rural areas in LDCs,

landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and SIDS have access to
only 3G and 2G connectivity, while newer and faster generations
of mobile infrastructure are being deployed in urban areas of HICs.
The reliance on older generation mobile infrastructure puts rural
areas in developing countries at a disadvantage compared to rural
areas in developed countries and urban areas at large.

52
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

FIGURE 21
Coverage of second-, third- and fourth-generation mobile infrastructure
across development status

RURAL 93%
Developed
URBAN 100%

RURAL 74% 14%

Developing
URBAN 98%

RURAL 34% 40% 12%

Least developed countries
URBAN 89% 11%

RURAL 31% 44% 16%

Landlocked developing countries
URBAN 100%

RURAL 42% 29%

Small Island Developing States
URBAN 88% 12%

4G 3G 2G

Note: The values for 2G and 3G networks show the incremental percentage of population that is
not covered by a more advanced technology network (e.g. 95% of the world population is covered
by a 3G network, that is 7% + 88%)
Source: ITU. 2021. Statistics. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024].
[Link]

In countries like the United States and the United Kingdom,

mobile operators have already announced plans to shut down 3G
coverage, considering it as outdated technology and aiming to
free up spectrum for newer generations of telecommunications
infrastructure. Similar actions have been taken by operators in
several European countries (Ashworth, 2021; Sweney, 2022; Hira
and Agarwal, 2021). Consequently, more than half of rural residents
in LDCs were covered only by mobile networks that are no longer
considered suitable for users in HICs. This lag in the availability
of modern telecommunications infrastructure is concerning,
especially considering the ongoing deployment of 5G in well-off
urban areas across different regions, including some LICs and
LMICs, and the development of standards for 6G in the near future
(Fisher, 2022; Ericsson, 2021).

While 5G mobile internet provides average speeds of around

100 Mbps, very few people in LDCs or rural areas of developing
countries have access to it (ITU, 2021a). Even if rural areas in LICs
and LMICs were to catch up in terms of 5G coverage, they would
still not have access to the fastest internet speeds available to urban
residents with fibre-optic broadband coverage. The disparities in
fixed-broadband subscriptions between developed and developing
countries are also significant, with nearly 300 million Africans
living more than 50 km away from a fixed-broadband connection
(African Union, 2020; FAO, 2021).

53
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Fibre-optic broadband technology, similar to mobile broadband,

undergoes generational shifts in speeds. While early adopter internet
service providers are already deploying broadband technology that
offers residential speeds of up to 10 gigabits per second (Gbps), the
next generation (BB6) is predicted to provide residential speeds of
50 Gbps by 2030, with some enterprises having access to even
higher speeds (World Broadband Association, 2022). The availability
of such high-speed connections leads to the development of
applications and content that require speeds beyond what mobile
internet can comfortably provide, such as high-definition quality
360-degree Virtual Reality experiences.

Access to high-speed internet, in combination with other enabling

factors, could empower rural residents in LDCs to access remote
work, online learning and digital services on par with their
counterparts in HICs. However, the definition of “high-speed” is
constantly evolving, and rural areas in LLDCs, LDCs and SIDS
are typically the last to receive new-generation connectivity
technology. Private telecommunications companies often prioritize
wealthier areas with greater purchasing power, which hinders
infrastructure deployment in rural areas (United Nations Secretary-
General, 2020b). Relying solely on market forces will not resolve
the uneven distribution of infrastructure between urban and rural
areas. Without concerted efforts to roll out fibre-optic cables and
the latest generation mobile connectivity infrastructure in rural
areas of LICs and LMICs, we risk perpetuating a future where
urban residents in HICs and a minority of urban residents in LICs
and LMICs have access to immersive technological opportunities
and services that people in rural areas of LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS
can only access on inadequate connections, if at all.

2.2.3 Unlimited data

There are differences between users who have limited and unlimited
data. Users with limited data often ration their data to stay within
their data allowance (for monthly plans) or minimize the frequency
of topping up airtime (for prepaid services) (Silver et al., 2019). As
a result, users with limited data may refrain from data-intensive
activities such as streaming or video calls. Web browsing consumes
as little as 20 megabytes of data per hour, while audio streaming,
video streaming, and video calling require significantly more data
(Rogerson 2022). Data rationing is a common practice, with a median
of 42 percent of respondents across 11 LMICs avoiding data-intensive
activities on their phones (Silver et al., 2019). Consequently, while
smartphone owners with mobile internet connectivity theoretically
have access to services like telemedicine, data unaffordability may
prevent poorer users from utilizing these services or limit their
usage compared to more affluent users.

The cost of 1 GB of data now represents an average of 1.7 percent

of monthly GDP per capita in LMICs (GSMA, 2022a). However, 1GB
of data is likely insufficient to sustain internet access for extended
periods, especially for users engaging in data-intensive activities.

54
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

©FAO/Mariano Silva

Unfortunately, while the GSMA provides data disaggregated by

individual income level and gender for the affordability of 1 GB of
mobile data, affordability data for larger amounts of data, such as
unlimited data or data allowances that users do not run out of, is
not available.

It is crucial to gather data on the affordability and usage patterns

of unlimited data or larger data allowances. Affordability issues
disproportionately affect people living in rural areas of LMICs, as
they are home to the majority of the world’s extreme and moderate
poor (Castaneda et al., 2016).

2.2.4 Intermittent access

People’s experiences of becoming internet users are not always
straightforward. While statistics on internet users and mobile
phone ownership may show a continuous increase, not all users
remain connected or maintain ownership after their initial access.
Instead, many individuals, especially those with low incomes,
experience periods of disconnection following periods of usage
(Gonzales, 2016). This highlights the distinction between users who
can maintain continuous connectivity and those who face barriers
or blackouts throughout the day, month or year. Marginalized

55
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

individuals are more likely to experience frequent disconnections

(Gonzales, 2016).

Intermittent access can result from various factors, such as unpaid

phone bills, reaching data limits, inability to top up prepaid data,
device issues (e.g. broken, lost, stolen), or living in areas with
limited or unreliable coverage (Gonzales, 2016; Mason et al., 2022;
Silver et al., 2019). Users on monthly plans may run out of data before
their billing cycle ends if they do not manage their data effectively.
Prepaid users may experience periods without data if they are
unable to top up immediately after exhausting their data allowance.
Users with intermittent access due to affordability concerns often
limit their internet usage to essential tasks to avoid running out of
data (Gonzales, 2016). During periods of disconnection, users may
rely on borrowing devices until they can afford to reconnect. A
survey in 11 LMICs found that device issues, such as broken, lost or
stolen devices, were the second most common reason (31 percent)
for borrowing devices, following affordability (34 percent)
(Silver et al., 2019). Similarly, a study across seven LMICs revealed
that 14 percent (in Pakistan) to 53 percent (in Kenya) of non-mobile
phone users had previously owned a mobile phone that was lost,
stolen, broken, or stopped working (Roessler, 2018).

Even when users can afford continuous connectivity, they may

live, work or frequently travel to areas with unreliable or limited
service. Consequently, people may experience a lack of coverage
throughout the day, week or year. While disruptions in service for
rural residents have been documented in places like the United
Kingdom (Mason et al., 2022), this phenomenon remains largely
unexplored in rural areas of developing countries. Smallholder
farmers, for example, may encounter varying levels of network
coverage while working in their fields or travelling to markets.
Seasonality could also impact intermittent access. Moreover, rural
areas often have fewer service providers (Isenberg, 2019), making
it less feasible to rely on multiple SIM cards or roaming to stay
connected. Further research is needed to understand whether
women and marginalized groups experience service disruptions
more frequently or differently compared to more privileged groups.

2.2.5 Digital and other relevant skills

It is important to recognize that the lack of skills limits some users
in utilizing the internet more frequently and engaging in a wider
range of digital activities. Digital skills encompass more than just
the technical and operational skills required to use digital devices
and the internet. They also involve the ability to seek, evaluate, and
utilize digital information to achieve personal and professional goals
(UNESCO, 2018).

At a basic level, using digital technology often requires language

literacy since many digital interactions involve text-based
communication or navigating text-based content. However, language
literacy poses a significant barrier for women and individuals living

56
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

in rural areas due to lower levels of education influenced by various

social, economic and cultural factors. In LDCs, the literacy rate for
females aged 15 and older is 54 percent, while it is 67 percent for
males (UNICEF, 2021c). While average literacy rates are higher in
LMICs, gender disparities still exist, albeit to a lesser extent (World
Bank, 2022b). Moreover, rural areas in LDCs generally have lower
literacy rates compared to urban areas (UNICEF, 2022a).

Users with adequate language literacy and basic digital skills

necessary to perform basic tasks like communicating on WhatsApp
may lack the skills required for more advanced activities such as
online job applications, remote learning or accessing government
services. Unfortunately, internationally comparable data on digital
skills is limited. The ITU categorizes digital skills into three
levels: basic, standard and advanced, which are also recognized
in the United Nations’ framework for universal and meaningful
connectivity (ITU, 2021c; United Nations Office of the Secretary-
General’s Envoy on Technology and ITU, 2021). It is worth noting
that many of the skills covered by the ITU’s indicators may not
apply to users who primarily use smartphones and may not be
involved in tasks such as file management, spreadsheet usage,
presentations or computer programming.

ITU’s data collection on digital skills is not as comprehensive as

its collection on standard internet use indicators, covering only
77 countries. In 2020, only 17 countries had populations where
at least 60 percent of individuals possessed basic digital skills,
and none reached this threshold for standard or advanced skills.
Consequently, there are very few countries where a significant
portion of the population possesses the standard digital skills
necessary for effective office work. ITU does not provide
disaggregated data on digital skills by region or gender.

TABLE 6
International Telecommunication Union categorization of basic, standard
and advanced digital skills
BASIC DIGITAL SKILLS STANDARD DIGITAL SKILLS ADVANCED DIGITAL SKILLS

• Copying or moving a file • Using basic algorithmic • Writing a computer

or folder formula in a spreadsheet program using a
• Using copy and paste
• Connecting and specialized programming
tools to duplicate or
installing new devices language
move information within
a document • Creating electronic
• Sending e-mails with presentations with
attached files presentation software
• Transferring files • Finding, downloading,
between a computer installing and configuring
and other devices software

Source: ITU. 2021. The ITU ICT SDG indicators. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited28 March 2024].
[Link]

57
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

As societies undergo digitization, the skills required to remain

digitally included and address emerging risks continue to evolve
and expand (UNESCO, 2018). New challenges such as the spread of
“fake news” and targeted disinformation highlight the importance
of critical assessment and verification of information sources, even
when they align with existing biases or worldviews (UNESCO, 2018).
The increasing prevalence of sophisticated phishing and ransomware
attacks emphasizes the need for cyber hygiene skills to protect
personal information from cyber-attacks (Vishwanath et al., 2020).

It is crucial to recognize that the necessary digital skills to fend

off digital exclusion are not static and will continue to evolve as
technology advances. Users will need to repeatedly adapt and
acquire new skills to fully participate online securely while
It is crucial leveraging digital technology to achieve their goals. The
development of digital skills is influenced significantly
to recognize that by the role of the state (UNESCO, 2018). However,
the necessary digital many LDCs and LMICs face capacity limitations in
investing in and implementing digital-skills training,
skills to fend off digital which requires the support of the establishment
exclusion are not static and lifelong maintenance among rural populations.
Considering the ever-changing nature of digital
and will continue to skills, these efforts should extend beyond one-off
evolve as technology training programmes. Additionally, it is vital to build
the capacity of national and local governments to
advances. implement digital-skills training initiatives effectively.

2.2.6 User autonomy

User autonomy refers to the degree of control individuals have over
their use of digital technology, including when, how, and for what
purposes they use it (Schradie, 2018). Ownership of devices and the
context of internet usage play a significant role in determining user
autonomy. Users who own their own devices and have unrestricted
access throughout the day have the highest level of autonomy. On
the other hand, users who rely on borrowed devices tend to spend
less time online and engage in fewer internet activities (DiMaggio
and Hargittai, 2001; Girl Effect, 2018), and marginalized groups are
more likely to borrow devices.

Mobile phone sharing is prevalent in rural areas, with individuals

in these areas more likely to borrow devices compared to those
in peri-urban and urban areas (Wesolowski et al., 2012). Women in
rural areas, particularly those who are poor and have lower levels of
education, are significantly more likely to rely on borrowed devices
(Wesolowski et al., 2012). Moreover, when women’s access to phones
is mediated by men, they often have limited access to the devices,
usually at specific times of the day or week (FAO, 2018a). Further
research is needed to understand how device-sharing practices in
rural areas impact user autonomy and outcomes. Existing research
shows that girls across different countries are more likely to have
their access mediated by a family member, usually a male, which
results in restrictions such as having to ask permission to use a

58
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

mobile device and having their digital activities monitored (Girl

Effect, 2018). Borrowing devices restricts users’ ability to explore
and discover information, websites or services relevant to their
needs and interests. It also limits users’ opportunities to improve
their digital skills through regular use. Affordability is the most
commonly cited reason for borrowing a device, particularly among
individuals in rural areas (Silver et al., 2019).

Similarly, users who rely on public computers in telecentres or

computer labs have lower autonomy compared to those who own
their own devices and have continuous access to the internet at home
or through mobile devices throughout the day. While telecentres
and other public access points can improve basic access and
enable users to engage in certain online activities, they might not
otherwise have access to, the experience of relying solely on public
internet access differs qualitatively from owning personal devices
and having access at home. Users who can only access the internet
at a friend’s or family member’s home also have limited autonomy
compared to those who can access it in their own homes. Public
access points have limited operating hours, whereas home access is
available 24/7. Consequently, users relying on public connectivity
tend to prioritize essential tasks with immediate benefits, while
users with greater autonomy are more likely to explore the internet
and develop their digital skills (Robinson, 2009). Users with
continuous and autonomous access are more inclined to create
content, whereas those with lower autonomy primarily consume
content (Schradie, 2018).

2.2.7 Proxy usage

Certain users, known as “proxy users,” rely on others to access digital
information or services (Selwyn et al., 2016). The need for proxies
is not a binary distinction between users who require assistance
for all their digital activities and those who can independently
navigate the online world. Instead, the level of proxy assistance
can vary. Some users may be proficient in basic digital activities
such as making phone calls, using social media or messaging apps,
and conducting online searches, but require assistance for more
complex tasks like filling out online forms or applying for jobs.
Proxies may also be sought for activities that users do not regularly
perform, such as downloading apps or setting up accounts. Similar
to those who rely on shared devices, proxy users tend to engage
primarily in essential internet activities while avoiding exploratory
and creative online pursuits (Selwyn et al., 2016).

Proxies can be individuals who are trusted by the user, such as

family members or friends, or they can be personnel working
in community-based organizations (CBOs) or individuals who
charge fees for performing digital tasks on behalf of others.
These relationships have significant implications for the activities
that proxy users feel comfortable delegating and the information
they are willing to share with their proxies. Formal arrangements
involving proxies have been observed in LIC and LMIC settings. For

59
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

instance, Grameen Foundation employs Community Knowledge

Workers in rural Uganda who act as intermediaries between
farmers and extension services facilitated through smartphones
(FAO, 2018b). Evidence suggests that female intermediaries are
often more effective at reaching female farmers, highlighting the
importance of training and involving more women in intermediary
roles (FAO, 2018a). In Bangladesh, “Info-ladies” travel to remote
villages on bicycles equipped with laptops, Universal Serial Bus
(USB) sticks, and headphones to help people, particularly rural
women, access the internet and cater to their specific needs. In
the United Kingdom and the United States, CBOs that typically do
not focus on digital inclusion found themselves providing digital
support during the pandemic to ensure community members could
access essential services that had transitioned online. Many of
these organizations offered their support without compensation or
recognition for their role in preventing digital exclusion (Hernandez
and Faith, 2020).

Further research is needed to explore whether rural CBOs in LICs

and LMICs also engage in unrecognized and uncompensated
digital-inclusion work. It is necessary to provide financial support
and capacity-building initiatives for proxies in rural areas to enhance
their ability to deliver digital-inclusion support. The first step would
involve mapping out CBOs, NGOs and other actors that currently
serve as proxies without adequate support.

2.2.8 Quality of devices

Device ownership and the type of devices used have a significant
impact on the user experience in the digital realm. While studies
on the first-level digital divide often group all mobile phone and
smartphone owners together, the functionality and capabilities
of different devices make a difference. Feature phones provide
limited functionality, smaller screens and may not support video
content or internet connectivity, which restricts the amount and
format of information that can be accessed and shared. Ownership
and access gaps between privileged and marginalized groups tend
to be wider for newer and more advanced devices. For example,
women are less likely to own any type of mobile phone and even
less likely to own a smartphone compared to men (GSMA, 2022b).
Moreover, the experiences with smartphones are not uniform.
Smartphone manufacturers release new flagship devices with
improved performance, software features (including those utilizing
artificial intelligence), processing speeds, sensors and cameras
on an annual basis. People living in poverty often have access to
older, slower devices with fewer features and lower-quality cameras
(Maréchal, 2017).

Many advanced software features introduced by smartphone

manufacturers are exclusively available on newer and more
expensive devices with significantly more processing power, which
remains unaffordable for many rural residents in LICs and LMICs.
These features could be beneficial for people in rural areas, such

60
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

as real-time on-screen and live audio translations of text, audio,

and video (including calls) without internet connectivity. However,
these technologies are not accessible on older and cheaper devices
commonly used by residents in LICs and LMICs.

While some device owners can afford to purchase new devices or

replace broken or stolen ones every few years, others are using
phones that are five years or older. Many smartphones from
just a couple of years ago do not support 5G connectivity, and
a significant proportion of smartphones sold in 2022 are still
4G phones. Some smartphones from the mid-2010s do not even
support 4G connectivity. As a result, users with older devices are
unable to access the fastest mobile broadband speeds available to
them, particularly in SSA where 3G connectivity is expected to
peak in 2023 despite over half of the population being covered by a
4G signal. SSA is projected to have only 28 percent 4G adoption by
2025, compared to the global average of 57 percent (GSMA, 2021b).
The lack of affordable 4G-enabled phones is cited as one of the
main barriers to 4G adoption in the region (GSMA, 2021c).

The physical condition of a mobile phone can also impact the

user experience and functionality. Users with cracked screens or
damaged speakers may encounter difficulties in browsing the web
or comprehending audiovisual content. Additionally, users with
slow devices that frequently freeze may experience significant
delays in completing tasks compared to users with newer devices
(Faith, 2018). A survey by Silver et al. (2019) revealed that broken
or stolen devices were the second most commonly cited reason for
borrowing mobile phones in 11 LICs and LMICs.

2.2.9 Device type

While smartphones have become increasingly powerful and offer
a wide range of functionalities, it is important to recognize that
computers and laptops still provide a better user experience for
certain activities. Reading lengthy reports or conducting in-depth
research, inputting data into spreadsheets, and participating in
remote learning are examples of activities that are more suited for
computers or laptops due to their larger screens and enhanced
capabilities. The United Nations framework on universal and
meaningful connectivity acknowledges that while basic mobile
phones and smartphones are more affordable, desktop computers
generally offer a richer experience (United Nations Office of the
Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology and ITU, 2021).

For instance, when it comes to online courses or video calls

involving multiple participants, smartphone screens may not
provide an optimal experience, especially when text-heavy
slides or the faces of numerous classmates or colleagues need to
be displayed (Parsons, Thomas and Wishart, 2016). Nonetheless,
smartphones have the advantage of portability, instant access and
the ability to stay connected while on the go. Ideally, users would

61
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

have access to both types of devices to take advantage of their

respective capabilities. Unfortunately, this is often not the case in
LICs and LMICs, particularly in rural areas.

A recent survey conducted across 34 SSA countries in 2018 (See

Figure 22 below) revealed that only 19 percent of individuals had
access to both a smartphone and a computer, with nine countries
reporting less than 10 percent of people having access to both
devices (Kronke, 2020). The disparity between rural and urban areas
is particularly significant, as only 9 percent of rural respondents
lived in households owning both smartphones and computers,
compared to 32 percent of urban respondents (Kronke, 2020).

FIGURE 22
Percentage of people with access to personal
computers and smartphones vs only a smartphone or
personal computer across 34 sub-Saharan
African countries disaggregated by geography
35
32 32

30

25
25
Percentage (%)

20
20 19

15

10 9

0
Average Urban Rural

Owns both smartphone Owns only smartphone

AND computer OR computer

Source: Kronke, M. 2020. Africa’s digital divide and the promise of e-learning. Afrobarometer Policy
Paper No. 66. Accra, Afrobarometer. [Link]

2.2.10 Safety of old devices

One crucial aspect of digital inequality that is often overlooked is
the age of the device being used, which has significant implications
for user experience and security. Smartphones can be targeted by
hackers who exploit vulnerabilities in the device’s software. While
mobile manufacturers release security patches to address these
vulnerabilities, not all smartphones receive equal coverage in terms
of security updates.

Although the literature on digital exclusion does not currently

delve into questions of secure phones, it is an area that warrants
further exploration, especially in LICs and LMICs, particularly in

62
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

rural areas where ownership of older and second-hand phones may

be more prevalent. This raise concerns that people in rural areas
who purchase second-hand phones may unknowingly use insecure
devices from the beginning.

In addition to the lack of hardware security patches, many

smartphone manufacturers cease providing software updates three
years after the release of their devices. This becomes problematic
from a security perspective as hackers exploit vulnerabilities in
outdated hardware and operating systems. It also hinders users
who wish to download, update and use apps. App developers often
stop supporting older operating systems, rendering certain apps
incompatible with outdated devices.

For instance, Microsoft Teams only runs on Android devices

equipped with the four latest major Android operating system
versions. Consequently, Android devices that have not received
software updates since 2018 (as of December 2022) would be unable
to download, update, or use the app (Microsoft, n.d.). Similarly,
Apple devices no longer receive updates for phones running
operating systems released before 2020 (as of December 2022)
(Moore, 2021). The lack of support for older operating systems by
app developers means that owners of outdated phones, no longer
receiving software updates, may be unable to access certain apps
and may find themselves excluded from digital services they may
require or desire.

To address these challenges, it is essential to raise awareness

among partners regarding the potential security risks associated
with providing beneficiaries with refurbished or older phones that
may no longer be supported with software updates or security
patches. When feasible, efforts should be made to upgrade these
devices to ensure they have access to necessary security patches
and software updates.

2.2.11 Inclusion at a disadvantage

As digitalization becomes increasingly pervasive, individuals are
expected to engage in various economic, social, political and leisure
activities using digital technologies. Accessing the internet is no
longer solely a matter of choice but has become a necessity (Faith,
Hernandez and Beecher, 2022). Consequently, individuals who lack
the necessary devices, internet access, fast internet connection,
digital skills, autonomy over their digital use, or continuous
connectivity must find ways to participate in the digital realm.

Users who face after-access barriers are included on unequal

terms. In some cases, these barriers can lead to digital exclusion
when content, services or processes are exclusively available online.
For users facing after-access barriers, accessing digital services
may require more effort, be slower, less seamless or come at a
disproportionately higher cost. Users with slow internet may need
to disable video during telehealth consultations, thereby missing

63
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

out on the full benefits of the experience. Users with limited

digital skills may take significantly longer to complete forms
correctly or require assistance from peers. Users who only have
smartphones may struggle to keep up with remote courses. Those
with outdated devices may need to borrow a friend’s device to
access digital services that require specific apps their own device
cannot run. Rural users in areas with unreliable coverage may have
to avoid certain locations, including their workplaces, if they are
awaiting important calls due to inadequate mobile signals. Users
whose internet access is mediated by others may need to navigate
relationships carefully to maintain access.

However, overcoming these barriers may not be sufficient to ensure

that, in general, smallholder farmers and rural populations can fully
benefit from their use of digital technology on par with urban users.
Structural, spatial and group-based inequalities hinder equitable
benefits from digital technology use for people residing in rural
areas, rural women and other marginalized rural groups. These
structural disadvantages encompass limited economic resources,
lower levels of human capital, less influential and dispersed social
networks, reduced civic and political power, entrenched social
norms, underrepresentation and the absence of an enabling
environment characterized by low local institutional capacity and
dysfunctional local markets.

BOX 6
A4AI’s Meaningful Connectivity Index

The Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI) and the Africa) revealed that only 10 percent of individuals
Web Foundation have developed the Meaningful in these countries met the criteria for meaningful
Connectivity Index. This index combines four connectivity (Figure A). This is significantly lower than
indicators to assess whether individuals have the the percentage of individuals considered connected
potential to be active participants in digital societies. based on the traditional internet user metric used by
These indicators include owning a smartphone or the International Telecommunication Union, which
powerful digital device, using the internet daily, having counts individuals as internet users as long as they
access to high-speed internet (at least 4G), and having have used the internet once in the three months
unlimited data at a regularly accessed location. preceding the survey.
Meaningful connectivity has been shown to be a These findings highlight the importance of
good proxy for assessing inclusion in digital technology considering after-access barriers and meaningful
usage. Users who meet the criteria for meaningful connectivity to assess the true level of digital inclusion
connectivity are more likely to engage in essential and address the challenges that individuals still face
online activities, such as taking classes, accessing even with access to the internet.
health care, seeking employment, participating in A4AI’s research reveals significant gender and
the digital economy, and posting on social media. geographical disparities in achieving meaningful
However, meaningful connectivity index scores are connectivity within countries. Urban residents and
not yet widely available for all countries. men are more likely to have meaningful access to
Early surveys conducted by A4AI in nine low- the internet (Figures B and C). The urban–rural gap in
income countries and lower-middle-income meaningful connectivity reached as high as 6.3 times
countries (Colombia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, in Rwanda (1.9 percent vs 0.3 percent as shown in
Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Figure B).

64
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

However, the A4AI study found that men were the need for assistance to complete digital tasks, the
nearly twice as likely as women to have meaningful condition of devices, software and security updates and
access to the internet (Figure C) (A4AI, 2022). These intermittent access are not captured by the meaningful
findings align with research conducted on digital connectivity index. When taking all these factors into
inequality in Europe, which demonstrated that account, it is likely that the number of users who are
despite bridging the binary digital divide, gendered online without facing additional barriers is even lower
digital inequality persisted in terms of usage patterns than 10 percent across these countries. This raises
and time spent online (Van Dijk, 2012). serious concerns about the extent of digital exclusion
Additionally, A4AI identified a gender gap in faced by rural residents in LICs, MICs, LDCs and SIDS.
meaningful connectivity across all nine surveyed The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in
countries, even in cases where ITU statistics suggested Agriculture has recently adapted A4AI’s Meaningful
that the gender gap had been bridged. For instance, Connectivity Index to create a Rural Significant
based on the latest available ITU gender disaggregated Connectivity Index for countries in LAC. The study
data from 2019, women in Colombia were slightly more revealed that 77 million rural individuals in 24 countries
likely to be online than men (ITU, 2021b). in the region lack meaningful access to the internet,
The findings from A4AI’s research highlight a with significant disparities between urban and rural
concerning reality: only around 10 percent of people areas (Ziegler et al., 2020). Rural residents were found
in the nine LICs and LMICs surveyed are considered to be almost half as likely as their urban counterparts
meaningfully connected. Factors such as digital skills, to have meaningful connectivity.
Sources: A4AI. 2022. Advancing meaningful connectivity towards active and participatory digital societies. Washington, DC,
Alliance for Affordable Internet. [Link]
ITU. 2021. Statistics. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]
Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. 2012. The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage.
In: J. Bus, M. Crompton, M. Hildebrandt & G. Metakides, eds. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2012, pp. 57–75. Amsterdam,
The Kingdom of the Netherlands, IOS Press.
Ziegler, S., Arias Segura, J., Bosio, M., Camacho, K. & Eje Transversal Innovación y Tecnología (ETIT). 2020. Rural connectivity in Latin
America and the Caribbean. A bridge for sustainable development in a time of pandemic. San José, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on
Agriculture, Washington, DC, Inter-American Development Bank, and Seattle, USA, Microsoft.
[Link]

FIGURE A
ITU internet user metric vs Alliance for Affordable Internet meaningful
connectivity in nine low-income and lower middle-income countries in 2021
80

70

60
Percentage (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
Colombia Ghana India Indonesia Kenya Mozambique Nigeria Rwanda South
Africa

Internet user metric Meaningful connectivity

Sources: A4AI. 2022. Meaningful connectivity for rural communities: Geographic barriers & policy
strategies for digital inclusion. Washington, DC, Alliance for Affordable Internet. [Link]
com/3d8pchub
ITU. 2021. Statistics. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024].
[Link]

65
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

FIGURE B
Meaningful connectivity in rural vs urban areas in nine low-income and lower
middle-income countries
Colombia

Ghana

India

Indonesia

Kenya

Mozambique

Nigeria

Rwanda

South Africa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percentage (%)

Total Urban Rural

Source: A4AI. 2022. Meaningful connectivity for rural communities: Geographic barriers & policy
strategies for digital inclusion. Washington, DC, Alliance for Affordable Internet. [Link]
com/3d8pchub

FIGURE C
Meaningful connectivity women vs men in nine low-income and lower middle-
income countries in 2021
Colombia

Ghana

India

Indonesia

Kenya

Mozambique

Nigeria

Rwanda

South Africa

Average

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percentage (%)

National Men Women

Source: A4AI. 2022. Advancing meaningful connectivity towards active and participatory digital
societies. Washington, DC, Alliance for Affordable Internet.
[Link]

66
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

BOX 7
The United Nation’s framework on universal
and meaningful connectivity
The United Nations framework for universal and dashboards will help monitor advancements in the
meaningful digital connectivity, developed in line different connectivity enablers and overall progress
with the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for towards meaningful connectivity.
Digital Cooperation, recognizes the importance of While the UN framework includes digital skills as
both universal and meaningful connectivity. The an important aspect of meaningful connectivity, it
framework acknowledges that access to digital spaces has some limitations compared with the Alliance for
is essential for various activities and services, and it Affordable Internet’s Meaningful Connectivity Index
aims to establish a baseline that ensures individuals (which does not include skills). The UN framework
have sufficient access to digital technologies. does not emphasize the frequency of internet use,
Meaningful connectivity, as defined by the and it places less importance on the type of device
framework, consists of five connectivity enablers: and speed of connectivity. For example, any internet-
skills, infrastructure, affordability, device, and safety enabled device is considered sufficient, and 3G speeds
and security. Each of these enablers contributes to are accepted in some contexts.
ensuring that individuals, households, communities One significant limitation of the UN framework is
and businesses can fully benefit from digital that it measures indicators independently, which may
technology. For example, meaningful access to underestimate the number of individuals experiencing
infrastructure means having access to fast and after-access barriers. This makes it challenging to
reliable connectivity, while meaningful affordability determine the extent of digital exclusion and the
involves access to affordable internet-enabled number of people at risk of being left behind.
devices and internet subscriptions. Digital skills and Overall, while the UN framework recognizes the
the ability to navigate digital spaces safely are also importance of meaningful connectivity, there are
crucial components of meaningful connectivity. areas where it can be further refined to provide a
The UN framework aims to track progress towards more comprehensive assessment of digital inclusion
meaningful connectivity for each UN member state and address the barriers individuals may face after
through interactive country dashboards established accessing the internet.
by the International Telecommunications Union. These
Source: United Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology & ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2021.
Achieving universal and meaningful digital connectivity. Setting a baseline and targets for 2030. New York, USA, United Nations.
[Link]

2.3 Structural inequalities

and root causes of
digital inequalities
The third level of the digital divide focuses on the inequalities in
outcomes arising from using digital technologies. It highlights the
disparities in users’ ability to extract economic, social, cultural
and civic benefits from their use of digital technologies. These
outcomes are closely linked to the achievement of the SDGs
(Helsper, 2021; Schradie, 2018). FAO has also emphasized the
importance of considering sociocultural and economic inequalities
in understanding the spread and impact of ICTs (Isenberg, 2019).

As discussed in the previous sections, the first- and second-level

digital divides are strongly correlated with offline inequalities.
Rural populations, women, and marginalized groups are less likely
to have digital access and are more likely to face barriers even
when they gain access. The third-level digital divide demonstrates

67
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

how digitalization can not only reproduce but also perpetuate

and exacerbate offline inequalities, creating a vicious cycle.
Digital technologies tend to amplify existing offline inequalities
(Toyama, 2011). Digital divides often stem from the same economic,
spatial, and social divides that already exist in rural areas (Schroeder,
Lampietti and Elabed, 2021). Rather than providing disadvantaged
users with equal opportunities to improve their well-being, digital
technologies disproportionately strengthen the capacities of
users with greater offline resources. Wealthier individuals
are able to leverage their offline resources through
digital technology, further enhancing their positions in
Addressing society. In contrast, disadvantaged groups often lack
structural inequalities the resources to leverage digital technology in a way
that equally benefits their socioeconomic status.
is essential for reducing
unequal well‑being The corresponding fields model provides a useful
framework for understanding the third-level
outcomes from digital divide. It illustrates how users’ access to
digitalization among offline capital, including economic, social, civic and
cultural resources, shapes their ability to benefit
marginalized groups. from digital technology (Helsper, 2012). As a result,
digital technology does not replace or compensate for
the lack of offline resources; instead, it tends to reinforce
existing inequalities. The following subsections will explore
how offline inequalities are reinforced through the use of
digital technologies. In addition to the axes of inequality covered in
the corresponding fields model (economic, human, social, and civic
capital), this section will also consider other important dimensions
such as social norms, representation, market functioning and local
institutional capacity, particularly in rural areas.

2.3.1 Economic resources

Users with greater economic resources have the ability to
purchase the latest digital equipment, subscribe to productivity-
enhancing digital services, and even invest their money in rapidly
growing digital firms. For instance, wealthier farmers with larger
landholdings can acquire farming machinery equipped with sensors
that connect with other sensors on the farm, providing real-time
information and enabling precision agriculture (Hackfort, 2021).
Similarly, wealthier farmers located near urban areas can employ
staff with digital and data science skills to fully leverage data-
driven insights (Hackfort, 2021). However, this ability of wealthier
farmers to invest in digital technology and hire skilled personnel
can further widen the inequalities between larger and smallholder
farmers, who may only have access to basic digital advisory
services. Unless the economic prospects of smallholder farmers
and rural populations in general improve, and spatial inequalities
are reduced, digitalization could potentially exacerbate the relative
disadvantages faced by farmers and rural communities.

68
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

A study by FAO revealed that although some farmers are adopting

emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, agricultural
bots, precision agriculture and blockchain, there are still significant
disparities in their access and utilization.

Female smallholder farmers face particular challenges in leveraging

digital technology to improve their economic prospects, as they
often operate smaller farms, use fewer inputs, and have fewer
and smaller livestock compared to male farmers (Isenberg, 2019).
In addition to potentially exacerbating inequalities between
smallholders and larger farmers, digitalization in agriculture carries
the risk of deepening urban–rural divides and widening economic
disparities, leading to the migration of people and industries away
from rural areas and resulting in long-term economic and social
decline (FAO and Zhejiang University, 2020).

The lack of financial capital, including limited access to credit

markets, poses a significant constraint for smallholders seeking
to enhance the productivity and profitability of their agricultural
activities, hindering their ability to engage in more commercially
oriented agriculture (Fan and Rue, 2020). It is worth noting that
rural areas are home to 80 percent of the global population living
in extreme poverty and 75 percent of the global population living
in moderate poverty, with the majority engaged in agriculture

©FAO/Amani Muawia

69
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

(Castaneda et al., 2016), despite rural areas accounting for only

44 percent of the world’s population in 2020 (World Bank, 2022b).
Consequently, smallholders in rural areas face significant barriers
in harnessing their economic resources through digital technology.

2.3.2 Human capital

The World Bank’s World Development Report on the Changing
Nature of Work emphasizes the importance of building human
capital to ensure inclusivity in the digitalized workforce. Individuals
with higher levels of human capital, including advanced digital
and cognitive skills, are better equipped to adapt to technological
changes (World Bank, 2019b).

As workplaces and industries undergo digitalization, workers with

higher levels of education and advanced skills have a greater
advantage in leveraging their abilities to earn higher incomes
compared to those with lower education and skills (Brynjolfsson
and McAfee, 2014). This is because digitalization tends to replace
repetitive tasks with technology, requiring workers to possess
higher-level digital and cognitive skills for new tasks and roles. The
increased demand for highly skilled workers and decreased demand
for middle- and low-skilled workers has led to labour-market
polarization, initially observed in developed countries but now
prevalent in developing countries as well (United Nations, 2020).

Less educated workers without a college degree have been

the least able to benefit from – and the most disrupted by –
technological changes. For instance, Kenyan farmers with higher
levels of education are more likely to adopt digital financial
technology platforms for marketing compared to farmers with
primary education or less (Mercy Corps Agrifin Accelerate, 2019;
Yeboah and Flynn, 2021). Educational attainment in rural areas of
LICs and LMICs remains below average, with limited infrastructure,
resources, higher dropout rates, and less effective learning (Trendov,
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
Varas and Zeng, 2019a). Rural youth often face the challenge of
often require significant
financial resources, large balancing work responsibilities, leaving them with less time for
farm sizes and close schooling or studying (Trendov, Varas and Zeng, 2019a).
integration with other
technologies and agrifood Digitalization increases the returns on education, particularly for
chain processes. It is highly educated workers, while reducing the demand for workers
therefore a greater challenge with lower education levels (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014; World
for small-scale farmers to Bank, 2019b, 2016). Disparities in educational attainment are
adopt such technologies, significant between urban and rural areas, with even greater gaps in
whereas larger farmers and secondary and tertiary education. For example, in South Asia, rural
agribusiness companies upper secondary school completion rates are 32 percent compared
will be more easily able to
to 50 percent in urban areas, while in SSA, the rates are 15 percent
implement them (Trendov,
for rural areas and 44 percent for urban areas (UNICEF, 2022b).
Varas and Zeng, 2019a, p. 13).
The Malala Fund (2018) estimates that over 1 billion girls and young
women under the age of 24 are at risk of being left behind by
digitalization due to their limited access to at least secondary-level
education. Improving education and human capital outcomes is

70
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

crucial to enhancing employment and earning potential for rural

populations as workplaces continue to digitalize.

Online distance learning has the potential to enhance the

availability and quality of education and teacher training in rural
areas, benefiting rural women and other marginalized groups
(FAO, 2018a; FAO and Zhejiang University, 2020). It can also
improve access to advisory and extension services by overcoming
barriers related to poor infrastructure and high costs associated
with visiting farmers in remote areas, which often results in one-
time information delivery (FAO, 2018b). However, as noted by
prominent digital development scholar Kentaro Toyama, expecting
the internet to provide education where education systems are
lacking is akin to expecting a student driver to drive themselves to
driving lessons (Toyama, 2011).

2.3.3 Social capital

Social networks play a crucial role in accessing knowledge and
support, particularly during times of need. However, there is a
strong correlation between wealth and the size and influence of
social networks. Wealthier individuals tend to have larger social
networks that include more powerful and influential people,
providing them with a greater support system (Smith, Menon
and Thompson, 2012). Rural women in LICs and LMICs often have
smaller social networks that revolve around family (GSMA, 2021d).
While digital technologies have been seen as a means to help
individuals with weaker social networks expand their connections,
research has revealed a “Matthew Effect” where better-off groups
are more successful in growing their social networks online (Neves
and Fonseca, 2015).

For smallholder farmers, social networks without ties to merchants

can hinder their ability to leverage mobile phones for better prices
for their products. Van Campenhout (2017) found that providing
farmers with a directory of traders improved their chances of
receiving better prices. However, rural residents need connections
that extend beyond market directories to improve development
outcomes related to health, employment, clean water and sanitation,
and citizen participation. For instance, a lack of social connections
to people with digital skills limits opportunities for acquiring digital
skills, with rural women being particularly disadvantaged in having
peers with such skills (GSMA, 2021d).

It is essential to build digital and non-digital social networks among

rural residents in different areas and establish connections between
rural and urban areas with sympathetic groups. Urban residents,
who have physical proximity to and greater visibility by politicians,
powerful actors and the media, can be crucial in supporting rural
residents (Kosec and Wantchekon, 2020). This would enable rural
residents to organize with networks in urban areas and other rural
areas during times of need to facilitate collective action.

71
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

©FAO/Valentina Jug

2.3.4 Social norms

Social norms play a significant role in restricting people’s access
to and use of digital technology, particularly, women’s access in
male-dominated societies. Women and girls often face restrictions
imposed by male and older female gatekeepers, leading to limited
digital access (Buskens and Webb, 2009). Using mobile phones and
accessing digital technology can be frowned upon for women, and
they may lead to marital problems or suspicion of infidelity from
their husbands in male-dominated contexts (FAO, 2018a). Concerns
about harassment, unsolicited messages, and calls further hinder
women’s use of technology (FAO, 2018a). Even when women have
access, it is often mediated or monitored, and they are less likely
to be allowed to use technology for as wide a range of activities as
men and boys (Girl Effect, 2018). Mediated access can also restrict
the timing of women’s phone use to specific times of the day or
week (FAO, 2018a). In some cases, women and girls are discouraged
from visiting telecentres or internet cafes due to concerns about
male presence (FAO, 2018b).

Marginalized minority groups, including racial, ethnic, religious, and

linguistic minorities, are more likely to experience online harassment
and hate speech (Castaño-Pulgarín et al., 2021; Jane, 2017). Women
from marginalized backgrounds in male-dominated societies face

72
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

double backlash from both the dominant society and their own
community. For example, Rohingya women may face taboos against
owning mobile phones, and those who speak out about women’s
rights on social media are threatened and intimidated online and
offline (Morshed et al., 2021; Hölzl, 2021).

Changing social norms in male-dominated societies and addressing

discrimination and oppression are crucial for improving internet
connectivity for marginalized rural residents. Engaging men and
boys is essential in enabling sustainable change, as gatekeepers
must be convinced to support women’s digital inclusion (FAO,
IFAD and WFP, 2020). Building trust and demonstrating socially
acceptable use cases for digital access can help overcome barriers.
Taking a family or community-based approach, where all members,
including men, are informed and involved in initiatives can help
foster understanding and support for digital inclusion (FAO, 2018b).

2.3.5 Civic/political capital

Digital technologies, including social media, have been hailed for their
potential to lower the costs of political participation and empower
marginalized individuals and groups. While digital technologies
are increasingly used by social movement organizations working
on various issues, their effectiveness in leveraging digital tools
depends on access to offline networks, resources and processes.

Research by Schradie (2018) highlights that working-class political

movements often have fewer organizational resources, including
funding, staff and access to functional digital hardware and
internet. Additionally, members of working-class movements tend
to have lower levels of digital skills, limiting their ability to benefit
from digital technologies. These movements are less likely to have
websites or a strong social media presence, and they generally
have fewer followers and less engagement compared to middle and
upper-class movements. On the other hand, middle and upper-class
social movements tend to have more resources, including funding
and staff dedicated to social media, enabling them to leverage
digital technology more effectively to achieve their goals.

Therefore, the digitalization of activism can contribute to

inequality in participation rather than equalizing it. It amplifies
existing disparities between different social movements based
on their access to resources and digital skills. In this context, it is
important to continue supporting and funding local rural advocacy
groups. Investments in digital equipment and digital-skills training
should be viewed as complementary to existing efforts rather than
a replacement.

Recognizing the specific needs and challenges faced by different

movements and providing appropriate support will help bridge the
digital activism inequality gap and ensure that digital technologies
are used to promote inclusive and equitable participation.

73
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

2.3.6 Local institutional capacity

FAO’s Science and Innovation Strategy recognizes the role of
strong institutions, political will, good governance, and enabling
regulatory frameworks in the success of digital innovations
(FAO, 2022). This understanding is supported by evidence from
digital development projects, which have consistently shown that
the mere introduction of technology is not sufficient to achieve
development outcomes. Instead, the presence of capable local
governments and organizations, as well as the alignment of digital
development goals with the political agenda, are crucial factors
for achieving positive results (Toyama, 2015, 2011). In other words,
technology cannot substitute for missing institutional capacity and
human intent. Technology projects in global development are most
successful when they amplify already successful development
efforts or positively inclined intent, rather than seek to fix,
provide, or substitute for broken or missing institutional elements
(Toyama, 2011).

Digital technologies have been seen as a potential tool for improving

government transparency, accountability and democratic
governance, particularly in rural areas (Edwards et al., 2016;
McGee, 2014; Peixoto and Fox, 2016). However, the political
empowerment of rural residents through digital technologies
requires a combination of capacity, power and incentives to act on
the information provided, as well as the willingness and competency
of politicians to address the demands of rural residents (Kosec and
Wantchekon, 2020). Unfortunately, these factors are often lacking
in rural settings, where low levels of literacy, limited physical
mobility due to inadequate roads, and limited access to politicians
who predominantly reside in urban areas pose challenges.

Improving the responsiveness of governments is only part of the

equation. Evidence suggests that digital governance programmes
may go unused when citizens lack trust in the government or when
previous interactions with the government have left them disillusioned
about their chances of being heard (Roberts and Hernandez, 2017).
Merely providing information through digital technologies without
the necessary power to effect change is unlikely to improve rural
governance (Kosec and Wantchekon, 2020).

To leverage the potential of digital technologies for development

outcomes in rural areas, it is crucial to organize and empower rural
residents while implementing government reforms at local and
national levels to ensure their voices are heard. Establishing an
enabling environment for digital agriculture innovation is essential,
and this requires building capacity within agriculture ministries
and developing dedicated e-agriculture policies that are responsive
to gender considerations (Trendov, Varas and Zeng, 2019a;
Isenberg, 2019).

FAO, with its expertise in e-agriculture and gender mainstreaming,

can play a vital role in supporting LICs and LMICs in developing
their e-agriculture strategies and integrating gender-sensitive

74
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

BOX 8
Fostering the development of national digital agriculture
strategies throughout Europe and Central Asia
FAO has been actively supporting countries in $ Kazakhstan: FAO collaborated with the European
Europe and Central Asia in developing national digital Bank for Reconstruction and Development
agriculture strategies, road maps and programmes to to implement the Inclusive Dairy Value Chain
promote the adoption of digital technologies. Here are Development Project, which involved the
some examples of FAO’s support: digitalization of the milk supply chain. A mobile
app called Collect Mobile was used to collect
$ Armenia: FAO assisted the Armenian Ministry of
data on milk output, procurement and supply
Economy in developing a draft national digital
structure, improving supply chain management
agriculture strategy for the period 2021–2030. The
and supporting small-scale farmers in adhering
strategy aims to leverage digital technologies to
to industry standards.
improve market access, enhance food production
and strengthen rural communities. $ Uzbekistan: FAO, along with its partners, is
providing technical assistance to the Ministry of
$ Bosnia and Herzegovina: FAO played a role in
Agriculture in developing a programme of action
collecting best practices and supporting the
for the digitalization of the agricultural sector. The
development of the country’s first national strategy
programme will identify priorities and activities to
for digitalization in agriculture. The strategic
accelerate digitalization and strengthen agricultural
frameworks developed at the state and entity
knowledge and innovation systems.
levels recognize the importance of the agricultural
sector for rural development, and FAO’s assistance
included a focus on encouraging rural women to
embrace digital technology.

approaches (FAO, 2018b, 2015). The collaboration among international

organizations, like the ITU and FAO, can continue to contribute to
the development of digital agriculture ecosystems that empower
rural populations and foster sustainable agricultural practices.

2.3.7 (Dys) functional local markets

The presence of market failures can significantly impact the
success of digital agriculture solutions. A study by Aker, Ghosh
and Burrell (2016) revealed that market failures contribute to
the negative outcomes of digital agriculture projects aimed at
improving farmers’ access to information. While information can be
valuable in improving smallholder incomes, it is not sufficient on its
own to address the broader issues that limit farmers’ ability to earn
higher incomes. Making information actionable requires addressing
the underlying market failures.

Various market failures have been identified as barriers to the

success of digital agriculture projects. These include the lack of
competitive markets, limited access to financial services such as
credit, inadequate provision of public goods (e.g. infrastructure
like roads), and the absence of secure property rights and contract
enforcement. Additionally, the presence of monopsonies, where
a single company dominates the purchasing of farmer crops,

75
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

hinders farmers’ ability to negotiate prices and benefit from price

information (Aker, Ghosh and Burrell, 2016).

Market failures are particularly prevalent in low-income settings,

including poor rural areas. These areas experience multiple market
failures, such as limited access to telecommunications and extension
services due to high investment costs, challenges in securing credit
due to lack of collateral, and difficulties in accessing crop insurance
due to high claim settlement costs and monitoring requirements.
Moreover, producers in these areas often face constraints in
accessing markets for their crops (Cunningham, 2011; Mendoza and
Thelen, 2008; Stiglitz, 1989).

Local agripreneurial digital and agritech start-ups can play a crucial

role in providing context-specific digital solutions to smallholders
and other rural actors involved in agrifood systems. However,
they also face challenges arising from dysfunctional markets
It is that lack professional services and finance opportunities,
as well as a lack of guidance on scaling in underserved
essential for markets (Trendov, Varas and Zeng, 2019a). Therefore,
rural development it is essential for rural development organizations
to thoroughly analyse offline markets and supply
organizations to chains before implementing digital solutions. This
thoroughly analyse analysis can help identify and address bottlenecks
that may exist and require additional efforts before
offline markets and or during the implementation of digital solutions.

supply chains before

implementing 2.3.8 Representation
digital solutions. The underrepresentation of people living in rural areas,
women and marginalized groups in technology companies,
policymaking and decision-making fora, and ICT governing
bodies has resulted in digital solutions and ICT policies that do
not adequately address their needs (FAO, 2021). The lack of female
ICT ministers and independent regulators headed by women
further exacerbates the gender imbalance in shaping ICT policies
(Isenberg, 2019). Interventions targeting rural areas in ICT for
development rarely consider the priorities, needs and preferences
of rural people themselves, leading to solutions that are dominated
by urban male perspectives and less responsive to the needs of
women (Isenberg, 2019).

The ICT sector itself is predominantly male- and urban-centric.

Women are significantly underrepresented in the ICT workforce,
particularly in roles that influence the creation and functioning
of digital solutions. Globally, only 6 percent of digital application
developers and 10 percent of internet entrepreneurs are female
(Isenberg, 2019). The media narrative surrounding technology, rural
development, agriculture and the economy is often controlled by
men, resulting in a lack of visibility and recognition of the roles
women play and their specific needs (Isenberg, 2019). There
is a critical need to improve the representation of rural people,

76
 2 THE digital divide in rural contexts and its characteristics

especially rural women, and marginalized groups, in order to

ensure that technologies, policies and initiatives better reflect
their needs and priorities. Rural women should be viewed as active
agents rather than passive recipients of aid and consumer products
(Isenberg, 2019).

Addressing structural inequalities is essential for reducing unequal

well-being outcomes from internet usage among marginalized
groups. Merely providing access to technology and training is
insufficient to bridge the digital divide. To reduce unequal outcomes,
spatial inequalities for people in rural areas must be addressed
across the SDGs. Good rural development is crucial for promoting
digital inclusion and achieving more equitable digital and offline
outcomes. Without improving the systems and structures within
which rural people operate, they will remain disadvantaged with
limited economic, social, political and personal resources that can
be leveraged both online and offline, putting them at risk of further
marginalization in the future.

77
Kenya
Two members of FAO Kenya using
mobile phones to enter coordinates
on eLocust3 application (OSRO/
GLO/001/CHA).
©FAO/Luis Tato
 3 WAYS FORWARD:
BEST PRACTICES TO
IMPROVE DIGITAL
INCLUSION
THE PREVIOUS SECTION DEMONSTRATED HOW DIGITAL
DIVIDES AND DIGITAL INEQUALITIES contribute to people living in
rural areas, women, and other marginalized groups in LICs and
LMICs disproportionately being at risk of digital exclusion amidst
digitalization and how structural and spatial inequalities lead to
uneven outcomes even when they are digitally included. This
section will highlight several ways that development actors can
promote inclusion. These solutions are loosely grouped into three
categories based on the framework presented in the introduction
(see Figure 23 below): Gender and marginalized group-responsive
digitalization, offline participation options and addressing
digital divides.

FIGURE 23
Ways to improve digital inclusion

Gender- and
Offline participation marginalized-group- Addressing digital
options responsive divides
digitalization

DIGITAL INCLUSION

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

79
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

BOX 9
FAO 1000 Digital Villages Initiative

In 2020, FAO launched the 1000 Digital Villages sustainability (FAO, 2022a). For example, in Latin
Initiative (DVI) to promote digital innovations to America and the Caribbean, DVI is focusing on rural
support inclusive, gender-sensitive rural development tourism experiences. It seeks to empower local
and sustainable agrifood transformation in alignment communities by leveraging digital tools to improve
with Agenda 2030. DVI follows a country-led, user- their marketing strategies and enhance the sale of
centred, holistic digital ecosystem approach for digital their tourism services, increasing their income and
village development. It combines a territorial approach generating employment opportunities. The initiative
with innovative design, pilot and deployment that has performed diagnoses in each country and offered
combines end-user needs and demand, inclusive a virtual course for producing marketing videos
business models and local ownership to ensure focused on young people (FAO, 2022b).
Sources: FAO. 2022a. 1,000 Digital Village Initiative: An initiative to expand digital innovations in rural villages for inclusive rural and agrifood
systems transformation. Bangkok, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. [Link]
FAO. 2022b. 1000 Digital Villages Initiative presented its progress in 14 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. News Release. Santiago,
FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.

In promoting the adaptation and transformation of digital

technologies in rural areas, some international organizations such
as FAO are carrying out innovative solutions of which the effective
promotion of digital inclusion is an important aspect.

Unlike digital exclusion which occurs due to a combination

of three factors (digitalization that is not responsive to
Actions the needs of marginalized groups, removal of offline
addressing any options, and digital divides), actions addressing
any of the three factors can help improve digital
of the three factors inclusion. However, combating all three factors at
can help improve once is more likely to lead to an inclusive digital
rural transformation where digital solutions are
digital inclusion. However, tailored to the needs of all smallholders, who
combating all three have the necessary level of digital connectivity
to fully participate in society, and can choose
factors at once is more to use offline alternatives according to their
likely to lead to an preferences, needs and priorities.

inclusive digital rural

transformation.
3.1 Gender- and
marginalized-group-
responsive digitalization

3.1.1 People-centred design

Development actors seeking to create digital solutions should
adopt the digital development principles at a minimum. The
digital development principles serve as best practice for the
development of digital content, services and processes that seek
to improve development outcomes. The first principle “design

80
 3 Ways forward: best practices to improve digital inclusion

with the user” stresses the element of co-creation: By designing

with the users, and not for them, you can build digital tools to better
address the specific context, culture, behaviours and expectations of
the people who will directly interact with the technology. Designing
together means partnering with users throughout the project lifecycle,
co-creating solutions, and continuously gathering and incorporating
users’ feedback (Principles for Digital Development, 2024).

Arathoon, Raithatha and Tricarico (2021) found that digital agriculture

solutions that put their users at the centre during the pandemic
were better placed to redesign their services to meet the needs of
smallholder farmers. People-centred design requires that potential
users be engaged in the process from the conceptualization phase
through to implementation and evaluation. Unfortunately digital
solutions that are relevant to people living in rural areas are not
currently putting marginalized groups at the centre. Tsan et al.,
(2019) found that digital agriculture apps that targeted women
in their design, marketing and user engagement efforts boosted
women’s uptake, but also found that most initiatives are not doing so.

Leaving no one behind will require putting not just any people at
the centre. It will require putting the hardest-to-reach and most
marginalized at the centre so that their unique needs are addressed
either through the digital solution or through an alternative offline
option. In this regard, FAO has consistently adhered to a people-
centred approach to promote inclusivity. Building upon its existing
work and network of partnerships, FAO is actively exploring and
experimenting, yielding significant results at the project level.

3.1.2 Gender (and other marginalized group) responsiveness

and mainstreaming
Solutions that treat all smallholders or rural people as a homogeneous
group are likely to exclude rural women and other rural
marginalized groups who are disproportionately affected by digital
divides. Digital solutions can help overcome barriers experienced
by women and other marginalized groups when designed and
implemented in a gender-responsive way. The content and overall
experience of digital agriculture apps need to be designed and/
or adopted to meet the needs of women and other marginalized
groups (FAO, 2018a).

Specifically, solution design should account for the technologies

used by women and any after-access barriers experienced by
women, men and other groups. For example, digital solutions need
to account for cultural and social limitations, time and mobility
constraints and lack of autonomy over use, literacy and education
levels, among other factors that disproportionately affect women.

The inclusion of women and other marginalized groups in the design

process and throughout the implementation of digital solutions can
help identify and address their needs correctly. In some contexts, it
can be useful to offer training and other interventions to men and

81
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

BOX 10
Gamification for digital learning:
Preventing child labour and fostering safe work
for youth in Lebanese agriculture
FAO developed a smartphone game called REEFI It provides them with better access to education,
(meaning “my rural place” in Arabic) in collaboration training and safe working opportunities in rural areas
with Plan International to improve the safety of child through digital inclusivity.
labourers in Lebanon, taking into account their digital Going beyond the direct benefit, trained children
skills, priorities and needs. One child shared, “After and youth can act as transformative agents, relaying
trying the game, I was in the field and I put on a jacket simple messages of good and safe agricultural
and a cap to protect myself from the sun, and I drank a practices in their communities (FAO, 2022). After
lot of water. I did not feel any pain.” This is only one of trying the game, a boy mentioned how he informed
the many testimonies that showcases the impact that his siblings about protecting themselves and even
the game has had on promoting occupational safety encouraged them to play the game with him. As a
and health and addressing child labour in agriculture result, his older brother wore a cap when going to work
(FAO, 2022a). the following day. Furthermore, another child from the
The difference between what is an “acceptable 16–18 age group stated, “Parents might realize the
task” and “child labour” is often determined by the dangers that their children are exposed to after trying
dangerousness of the task. The game, REEFI, is FAO’s the game.” Launched in 2022 and available for Android
innovative tool (currently in its pilot phase) to learn and iOS platforms, REEFI was adapted and replicated
through play for Lebanese and Syrian children and in Mauritania in 2023.
youth living in vulnerable conditions in rural areas.
Sources:FAO. 2022a. REEFI: game application on child labour and occupational safety and health in agriculture for rural children and youth
[video]. [Cited 29 March 2024]. [Link]
FAO. 2022b. FAO launches “REEFI”, a digital game on child labour and occupational safety and health in agriculture for rural children and youth.
In: FAO – FAO in Lebanon. Rome. [Cited 29 March 2024]. [Link]

women separately, especially in situations where joint participation

may limit women’s ability to speak freely (FAO, 2018a). Training
must also take into account the daily timetables of women and
other marginalized groups, and child care may need to be provided
in some situations (FAO, 2018a).

However, initiatives should not focus exclusively on women. “It is far

more effective to work with both women and men, and to explore
the relationships and differences that exist among the two groups,
in order to make a real impact and work towards changes in a
community” (FAO, 2018a).

FAO (2018a) highlighted the need to mainstream gender across

seven critical factors of success:

% Adapt content to the needs of both women and men.

% Consider the gender-sensitivity of capacity building across

individual-, organizational- and enabling-environment levels.

% Consider the broader picture of gender relations in social

dynamics.

% Ensure inclusive participation of women and men at all stages.

% Analyse and address gender issues among partners.

82
 3 Ways forward: best practices to improve digital inclusion

BOX 11
Talking Books provide an innovative solution
to reach rural communities in Uganda
In some contexts, a lack of language and digital literacy ideas regarding women’s rights and how they benefit
can make delivering messages to beneficiaries over entire households and communities. “The Talking Books
digital technology difficult for development actors. motivate people to reflect on the gender dimension of
“Talking Books” were leveraged by FAO and Amplio land issues and discuss them, inducing through debates
(a United-States-based social enterprise) to provide within households and whole communities,” said the
training to people living in remote and underserved Project Coordinator. Along with challenging social
areas with low or no literacy who tend to be out of norms, the Talking Books also include content relevant
the reach of conventional development programmes. to all farmers, including how to mitigate the impacts
Around 400 Talking Book devices were provided to of climate change on food production and livelihoods.
people in two districts in rural the West Nile region of FAO and Amplio had distributed Talking Books
Uganda. The audio devices are designed to operate to the Farmer Field School networks and Watershed
in contexts where electricity and internet are limited. Management groups in Uganda, where listeners had
They function offline, use batteries and can play hours the chance to record questions and feedback relating
of audio content. to the audio content. FAO and Amplio introduced and
Each Talking Book is equipped with stories and improved the audio messages based on this data.

% Use the right mix of technologies that meet the needs of women
and men.

% Consider economic, social and environmental sustainability.

National agriculture, ICT and e-agriculture policies and strategies

tend to neglect mainstreaming gender, leading to projects that
are implemented in isolation and duplicate efforts and resources
(FAO, 2018a). To overcome this challenge, FAO partnered with the
ITU to develop an e-agriculture strategy guide that takes gender
into account, which has already been piloted in several countries
in the Asia–Pacific (FAO and ITU, 2016). It is necessary to continue
to provide training and technical assistance to policymakers and
digital service providers (as well as service providers seeking
to digitalize their services) on mainstreaming gender and
intersectionality across their work and activities. This can include
technical assistance in ensuring the equal participation of women
and men, improving gender awareness of staff, M&E systems that
capture gendered differences, and mechanisms to address gender
gaps when they occur (FAO, 2018a).

3.1.3 Making digital solutions accessible

Making websites and applications more accessible can help improve
inclusion for groups with access to technology but experience
additional barriers to getting online that accessibility features can
accommodate. This includes persons with disabilities, people with
low levels of literacy, and linguistic minorities, etc.

Providing content in multiple languages can help linguistic minorities

access relevant content. The United Nations e-government survey

83
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

notes that over 80 percent of nation-states offer their national

e-government portals in more than one official language (United
Nations, 2022).

Responsive web design refers to a web development approach that

allows for websites to automatically be scaled on screens based on
the device being used, and should be adopted as best practice to
provide positive user experiences for those who only have access
to handheld devices (United Nations, 2022). “Currently many sites
and tools are developed with accessibility barriers that make them
difficult or impossible for some people to use” (W3C, 2024). The
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are an open international
standard that helps make digital content more accessible to persons
with disabilities, which should also be adopted.

3.2 Providing offline

participation opportunities

3.2.1 Ensure offline service delivery options

Offline options are essential for reaching individuals who are less likely
to be online (Hernandez and Roberts, 2018; United Nations, 2022).
However, they are often briefly mentioned and lack concrete
examples. For example, the most recent UN EGDI acknowledges
that hybrid digital and offline solutions are necessary to promote
inclusion, but the index also combines all efforts to promote
inclusion into one single metric of inclusion, which itself includes
a digital solution: “Free access to government online services is
provided through kiosks, community centres, post offices, libraries,
public spaces, or free Wi-Fi” (United Nations, 2022, p. 39). Further
research is necessary to illustrate best practices in implementing
parallel offline options for digital service delivery, which will provide
insights into practical applications through case studies.

Digitalization can improve offline services through in-person service

centres. Some governments have chosen to complement their
one-stop shop national web portals and digital apps within person
service centres where their residents can leverage the convenience
of one-stop shops without having to use technology themselves.
These centres consolidate government services and often provide
additional assistance. Extensive government digitalization is needed
to enable such centres, requiring data integration among service
providers. For instance, the 24 Azerbaijan Service and Assessment
Network (ASAN) service centres, in conjunction with its ASAN App
and portal, offer citizens access to over 360 services from state and
private entities (Karimil, 2022).

However, service centres are often few in number and tend to be

concentrated in urban and densely populated areas. Some countries
and subnational governments have taken innovative approaches to

84
 3 Ways forward: best practices to improve digital inclusion

©FAO/Imrana Kapetanovic

expand services offered in their one-stop-shop service centres to

rural areas including through buses, trains and vans that periodically
visit rural areas to provide in-person services (Jafarli, 2021; United
Nations, 2022). In Azerbaijan, Citizens can check when the ASAN
bus or train providing digital government services will visit their
area online or through the phone. However, Azerbaijan only has ten
ASAN buses and one ASAN train (Jafarli, 2021) and it is unclear
how often they can cover each remote village. Thus, although such
efforts improve inclusion to some extent, people living in rural areas
are unable to benefit from being able to access them on a day of
their choice the way urban residents can.

With the support of the United Nations Development Programme,

the Government of Bangladesh has established 8 200 digital
centres, offering 300-plus public and private services through
the Aspire to Innovate programme (The Business Standard, 2021).
The project aimed to create a digital centre in each of the 4 500-
plus union councils, ensuring rural and less literate populations
can access seamless digital services. These centres also provide
additional digital services, such as agent banking from mobile
money and traditional banks (Apolitical, 2022). Managed by local
entrepreneurs, these centres function as start-ups, offering services
at government-set low fees. They enable rural residents to access

85
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

digital government services conveniently, reducing the need to

travel long distances to urban centres.

The Government of Malaysia introduced the Malaysia Government

Call Centre (MyGCC) in 2012, a toll-free one-stop shop accessible
24/7 for residents to receive services from government agencies
and ministries via phone ([Link], n.d.). MyGCC offers
seven alternatives to the digital portal, including SMS, phone, email
and social media platforms ([Link], n.d.). Multiple service
delivery mechanisms, combining digital, face-to-face and offline
options, have proven effective in enhancing inclusion. A study
conducted by seven NGOs in SSA and South Asia demonstrated
that a mix of digital and offline approaches maximizes inclusion,
especially in low-literacy and high-poverty contexts (Feedback
Mechanisms, 2016).

UNESCO and others found that using various remote learning

methods during the pandemic benefited students from marginalized
backgrounds (World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF, 2021).
Humanitarian initiatives leveraging digital tools recognize the need
for in-person and mixed-methods approaches to address potential
exclusions amplified by digital tools (Bryant, 2022). An FAO review
emphasized the importance of providing multichannel alternative
service delivery to ensure the inclusion of digital social protection
systems (Barattini et al., 2022). While concerns about an “over-the-
counter trap” (Bakshi, 2014) in digital financial services have been
raised, it is essential to view over-the-counter financial services as a
tool to promote inclusion, particularly for less connected individuals.

Offline options, while beneficial in some respects, may offer a

secondary service experience compared to online services. For
instance, e-government benefit applications online are quick, with
responses received within hours or less, whereas postal applications
can take weeks. The earlier examples of ASAN buses and trains
also underscore the limitations of inclusion efforts, which can result
in temporary or infrequent access. Additionally, in-person service
users may face long journeys to distant service points with limited
operating hours, while digital service users enjoy the convenience
of applying from home at any time. Furthermore, over-the-counter
financial services are not universally available in rural areas. When
designing offline alternatives, it is crucial to minimize factors that
could lead to unequal user experiences.

3.2.2 Empowering digital intermediaries

As mentioned in Section 2, some people rely on others – known as
proxies or intermediaries – to access all or some digital information
or services (Selwyn et al., 2016). Proxies can be friends, family
members, people working at a community-based organization
or NGO, or even strangers who charge for their services. For
example, in rural Indian villages with low literacy rates among
women, internet kiosks have employed and trained dedicated
staff who could serve as proxy users for women who are unable to

86
 3 Ways forward: best practices to improve digital inclusion

make use of the kiosks on their own to access health information

(Venkatesh, Sykes and Zhang, 2020). Grameen Foundation
employs Community Knowledge Workers in rural Uganda who
act as intermediaries between farmers and extension services
mediated over a smartphone (FAO, 2018b). Evidence shows that
female intermediaries are often more effective at reaching female
farmers. Thus, it is important to train and include more females
as intermediaries (FAO, 2018a). Info-ladies travel to remote villages
in Bangladesh on bicycles equipped with laptops, USB sticks, and
headphones to help thousands of people access the internet and
tailor it to the needs of rural women.

Although many proxies already provided assistance to marginalized

communities prior to the pandemic, the digitalization of essential
services and the pausing or removal of in-person alternatives due to
lockdowns and social distancing measures led many less connected
individuals to reach out to CBOs and NGOs for help (Hernandez and
Faith, 2020). Many turned to CBOs that do not typically address
issues related to digital inclusion and thus many CBOs found
themselves learning to provide such support on the go. Moreover,
this often went largely unrecognized by service providers, and
CBOs did not receive any additional financial support to help their
communities access digital services. The result was that the cost of
inclusion of less connected individuals was transferred to CBOs and
other proxies. Identifying and supporting informal arrangements
where intermediary CBOs in rural low- and middle-income settings
will help less connected and less digitally savvy residents access
digital services without formal support is vital.

3.3 Addressing
digital divides

3.3.1 Provide telecentres with technical assistance

related to inclusion
Telecentres refer to public places where people can go to access
digital equipment and the internet and receive digital-skills
training. They are one of the oldest measures seeking to improve
digital access in rural areas, dating back to the 1990s. Telecentres
have predominately been located in impoverished communities,
specifically in rural areas, and are typically either funded by
donors or run as microenterprises that charge users fees for
their services and use of the internet (Toyama, 2011). Telecentres
were touted as potential game changers and equalizers for rural
people. Unfortunately, most telecentres have underperformed and
struggled to remain financially viable, and many closed within
months or years of opening. The few that succeed tend to be “run
by devoted non-profit organizations that expend considerable
effort and resources or by talented, dynamic entrepreneurs who
manage multiple income-generating activities” (Toyama, 2011, p. 5).

87
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Moreover, many telecentres have been shown to exclude

marginalized and vulnerable groups. Telecentres that charge
for fees automatically exclude potential users who are unable to
pay. Moreover, social and gender norms can hinder marginalized
groups (e.g. Indigenous groups) and women from making use
of the telecentre, even in cases where they are accessible at no
monetary cost (Toyama, 2011). In some places, “it might be [seen
as] inappropriate for women to visit telecentres or cybercafés, or
women might be reluctant to visit these because they do not feel
at ease” or due to mobility constraints placed on women by cultural
and social norms (FAO, 2018a, p. 27). As a result, better-off groups
in rural areas – namely educated and employed young men – are
often most likely to make use of telecentres.

Thus, expecting marginalized users to automatically access

information via public computing (e.g. internet kiosks or telecentres)
may be short-sighted since telecentres on their own reinforce
inequalities within rural areas (Aker, Ghosh and Burrell, 2016;
Toyama, 2011). Thus, the introduction of telecentres should be
accompanied by efforts to both make them more accessible and
responsive to the needs of marginalized groups, and to reform the
cultural institutions that lead to marginalized groups to being seen
as less worthy of making use of them. Locating telecentres near
places where women already visit and travel to may help boost
their attendance (FAO, 2018a). Governments and donors can play
a role in making telecentres more available and their services
more accessible. Such was the case in Bangladesh, where the
government has helped set up over 8 200 digital centres, each
offering local residents over 300 public and private services (The
Business Standard, 2021).

3.3.2 Improve the focus of Universal Service

Funds towards inclusion
Telecommunications companies tend to prioritize markets deemed
as profitable. Unfortunately, rural and remote communities often
have low purchasing power and dispersed populations which
result in rural communities having less access to infrastructure,
having their access updated later, and being more likely to be
wholly disconnected from digital infrastructure altogether. Thus,
markets alone are unable to deliver internet to all rural areas.
Many countries have introduced Universal Service Funds (USFs) to
fund infrastructure deployment in underserved areas. Along with
deploying digital infrastructure, these funds are also often used to
implement other digital-inclusion efforts in underserved areas like
telecentres and digital-skills training programmes (Ogiemwonyi
Arakpogun, Wanjiru and Whalley, 2017) governments across Africa
have established USFs.

However, reviews have shown that most USFs are often poorly
implemented, inefficient and ineffective. By 2013 more than half
of the money raised by USFs were never used, and more than
one-third of USFs were unable to implement any projects at all

88
 3 Ways forward: best practices to improve digital inclusion

BOX 12
Success story from Egypt on inclusive digital training

In January 2022, Ms Nevin Talaat, the manager of an The women were excited to attend the closing
agriculture extension centre in an Egyptian village ceremony by the end of the course and receive
in the Nile Delta, attended a five-day training course training completion certificates. They enthusiastically
on digital skills delivered by FAO. Inspired by the shared their success stories, such as a woman
knowledge she gained, she decided to introduce the who began to sell her poultry products through her
same course to women at the village level. She formed children’s Facebook pages. Another woman created
a group of 15 women and 3 men who expressed interest a YouTube channel to showcase her poems, and a
in attending this course (FAO. n.d.a). She agreed with woman introduced her story of adopting meals from
participants to hold the course sessions twice a week El Mufeed’s healthy nutrition theme into her YouTube
to accommodate other participant commitments, channel. Another woman applied the advisory
and she introduced the content at a relatively slow guidelines of the household poultry production theme,
pace over two months to fit the characteristics of resulting in improved health and production indicators,
trainees. This included some basic digital skills on and a woman applied the food-safety guidelines at
using common tools (e.g. email, WhatsApp, Microsoft home that she learned from El Mufeed (FAO. n.d.b).
Word), social media like YouTube and Facebook, Zoom
and FAO Digital Services Portfolio (FAO, 2020).
Sources: FAO. n.d.a. How FAO digital tools are helping Egyptian farmers to improve their livelihoods [video]. [Cited 3 April 2024].
[Link]
FAO. n.d.b. The FAO digital app of "El-Mufeed in Food and Agriculture" [video]. [Cited 3 April 2024]. [Link]
watch?v=R8S1HIULV3o
FAO. 2020. FAO & MALR invite extension agents to use “El Mufeed” app and disseminate among targeted groups. In: FAO – FAO in Egypt. Rome.
[Cited 29 March 2024]. [Link]

(GSMA, 2016b, 2013; ITU, 2013). Ogiemwonyi Arakpogun, Wanjiru

and Whalley (2017) found that African USFs often fail in part due to
poor policy formulation, inadequate regulatory competence, narrow
scope of USFs, inaccurate data, lack of accountability, inadequate
stakeholder engagement and undue political influence. A study
of USFs in Asia and the Pacific found “that countries with USFs
targeting broadband/internet expansion have not experienced
better results in fixed-broadband and internet growth than the
countries without such fund” (UNESCAP, 2017).

Nonetheless, USFs has been shown to be an effective way to

help improve infrastructure access and fund other inclusion
efforts in places that have managed to overcome the barriers
mentioned above. There are signs of LICs and MICs leveraging
USFs to improve internet access, including in Pakistan and India
(A4AI, 2020a, 2020b). Unfortunately, many USFs run on the
assumption that all projects will benefit all rural residents equally.
Efforts are needed to ensure that USFs are responsive to the
needs of women and other marginalized groups living in rural
areas in order to mitigate some of the risks uncovered by early
investments in telecentres (World Wide Web Foundation, A4AI and
UN Women, 2018).

Direct involvement in improving infrastructure is beyond the

scope of many specialized UN agencies, like FAO. Still, it is crucial
to advocate for and provide supporting efforts that make USFs
investments – including budgets – responsive to the needs of people
living in rural areas, women, youth and other marginalized groups.

89
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

BOX 13
FAO supported digital-skills
development in Albania,
Georgia and the Republic of
Moldova
In Albania, three rural communities have benefited
from enhancing their knowledge and utilization of
e-agriculture, digital technologies and innovation:
(i) Belsh, famous for its high-quality olive oil and
vegetable production, (ii) Korçë, where apple and
cherry production constitutes an important segment
of the local economy and (iii) Malësi e Madhe, which
specializes in cheese and dairy production. In
accordance with national and local priorities and
needs, digitalization was leveraged with the objective
of increasing the competitiveness of the agritourism
sector and income diversification. Together with the ©[Link]

International Labour Organization, local farmers and

extension services providers received training on how collected, featuring the stories of five farmers from
to promote and add value to local agricultural products, Kvareli, Didi Lilo, Kvemo Kartli and Shida Kartli who
establish sustainable trading relationships and apply improved production and increased sales thanks to
innovative digital solutions for precision agriculture precision agriculture technologies, farm management
and pest and soil management. In order to maximize apps and social media promotion.
scalability, training courses were made available in an In the same year, FAO and the Federation of
online platform for a wider audience. Agricultural Producers from the Republic of Moldova
In 2022, FAO initiated a strategic collaboration with delivered training sessions to increase digital literacy
the Georgian Farmers’ Association (GFA) to accelerate among rural women in the districts of Cantemir, Hâncești
digital transformation of agriculture. Following an and Râscani. The training covered a range of topics,
assessment of more than 300 farmers’ needs and including advanced technology solutions applicable
digital capacities, the GFA developed online tutorials to in agriculture, online selling, digital payments, digital
teach farmers how to promote their business digitally. marketing and social media promotion.
In addition, good practices on the use of ICT were

3.3.3 Digital-skills training

The effort to provide digital-skills training to smallholders and
rural communities needs to consider the multidimensional and
evolving nature of digital skills. Given the evolving nature of digital
technologies, digital training cannot be a one-off activity. Rural
people may need periodic training support. Much training to date
has focused on building computer-related skills (the skills in Table 6
in Section 2.2.5) and has been delivered in classrooms. Computer-
based training is often delivered to prepare participants for the
workforce and is often combined with more general job-readiness
skills training (e.g. soft skills, business acumen, financial literacy,
etc.) and tends to be concentrated in urban hubs (GSMA, 2021d). As
Section 2.3.2 showed, these skills are in high demand by employers
and computers still provide some advantages over smartphones for
certain tasks and activities.

Thus, such training is necessary to improve employment prospects,

especially for youth. However, it is also important to provide digital-

90
 3 Ways forward: best practices to improve digital inclusion

skills training that take into account people’s priorities, motivations,

and the devices people have access to. The majority of new users
are accessing the internet via mobile phones, especially in rural
areas in LICs and LMICs, making it also necessary to cover skills
related to mobile and smartphone usage (GSMA, 2021d). Digital-
skills training may need to be combined with basic literacy training
in cases where illiteracy is high. GSMA (2021d, 2021e) recommends
building trainee archetypes based on demographic groups to
determine the needs and barriers for different segments of the
population and target training accordingly.

Training is not automatically inclusive of women and marginalized

groups. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that all groups are
able to participate equally. In some contexts, it can be useful to
offer training to men and women separately, especially in situations
where joint participation may limit women’s ability to speak freely
(FAO, 2018a). Training should also take into account the differences
in timetables, responsibilities and the social environments between
men and women and different groups within rural areas. In some
cases, it may be necessary to provide child care to incentivize
the participation of women. Some initiatives have succeeded by
leveraging the places and groups women already visit or engage
with (FAO, 2018a).

Another option is training community members and encouraging

them to share their access and knowledge with others (GSMA, 2021d).
For example, Google and Tata Trusts have equipped rural women
in India with phones, power bank and training, which they were
encouraged to share. Along with providing digital-skills training
directly to beneficiaries, specialized UN agencies like FAO can
support the government and non-state actors in capacity building
to deliver tailored digital-skills training.

91
The United Republic of Tanzania
A Sao Hill worker using a computer
system controls the machines sorting and
separating tree logs (GCP/INT/349/GER).
©FAO/Luis Tato
 4 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
IN CONCLUSION, SMALLHOLDER FARMERS
AND SMALL-SCALE PRODUCERS residing in rural areas are
particularly vulnerable to digital exclusion. Rural poor, women,
young people, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, older
persons, migrants and displaced people are especially at risk of
experiencing exclusion as a result of poorly managed digitalization.
Digital exclusion results from three interrelated factors: (i) the
digitalization of sectors crucial for the livelihoods and well-being of
smallholders, (ii) the limited availability of offline alternatives, and
(iii) the persistence of digital divides.

The first section of this report provided a glimpse of digitalization

trends across several sectors vital to the well-being of smallholders
and their families, including agrifood systems and beyond (education,
government services and social protection). Unequal access
to digital opportunities, services and content is negatively
impacting access to essential services across all the
Collaboration sectors covered. Rural populations – particularly
rural women and girls – face more significant
among various barriers to digital engagement. Furthermore, as
these sectors undergo digital transformation,
stakeholders is critical to it is also becoming increasingly challenging
addressing digital exclusion, for rural communities to participate through
offline means.
digital inequalities and
digital divide, achieving The second section of the report illustrated
how people living in rural areas are
inclusive digitalization, disproportionately affected by digital divides.
and advancing rural First, they have less access to digital technology
and are more likely to encounter barriers.
transformation. Second, they tend to have access to lower-quality
digital connections, engage in fewer digital activities
and encounter additional obstacles that impede their
continuous and autonomous use of digital technology.
Third, structural inequalities further influence their ability to
equally benefit from digital technology use when compared with
better-off groups.

93
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

The third section summarized ways rural development actors can

enhance digital inclusion for smallholders and rural populations more
generally. Addressing digital exclusion requires concerted efforts
across three areas: (i) bridging digital divides, (ii) promoting offline
alternatives, and (iii) ensuring gender and marginalized-groups-
responsive digitalization. Working across these three areas requires
recognizing the specific needs and circumstances of smallholders
and marginalized groups in rural areas and developing strategies
that consider both online and offline approaches to assistance
and service delivery. FAO and global development partners can
leverage such an approach to help ensure that digitalization leaves
no one behind and contributes to more efficient, inclusive, resilient
and sustainable agrifood systems for better production, better
nutrition, a better environment and a better life.

The rest of this conclusion summarizes recommendations based on

the findings from the report.

4.1 Mapping the

digital‑inclusion landscape
Improving digital inclusion for rural communities requires a
concerted effort across all sectors vital to their well-being
(including agrifood systems and beyond) that are currently
undergoing – or may soon undergo – digitalization. The first step
for rural development partners and stakeholders should be to
comprehensively assess the inclusivity of digitalization across these
sectors in places where they are actively engaged. For each sector,
the exercise should assess the level of participation of smallholders,
the gender responsiveness of digital solutions, the required
technologies and skills for engagement, and the availability of
offline alternatives. A parallel assessment should examine access to
technology, digital skills and access quality among rural populations
to determine their level of readiness to engage digitally. Particular
attention should be given to the readiness and needs of rural women
and marginalized groups who are often most excluded from digital
opportunities and services. By taking these actions, development
partners and stakeholders can significantly enhance the evidence-
base for their collective efforts to advance digital inclusion.

Rural communities will continue to require access to offline

alternatives given their disproportionate likelihood of experiencing
of digital divides and lower levels of digital access. For this reason,
mapping exercises must identify areas where offline alternatives
are absent or have been removed or reduced. Collaborating with
relevant stakeholders is essential to introduce or reintroduce offline
alternatives, particularly in areas where their absence adversely
affects smallholder farmers and small-scale producers.

FAO and partners should also seek to establish collaborative

frameworks to ensure comprehensive representation of rural areas

94
 4 Conclusions and Recommendations

in existing mappings, such as UNDESA’s e-government index. This

is particularly relevant considering the index’s recent expansion
to include data related to large cities while the e-government
experiences of rural communities remain poorly understood.

4.2 Develop a normative

framework, guidelines and
surveys on digital inclusion
Digitalization is not inherently inclusive of rural communities
and marginalized groups. It is thus imperative to guide science
and innovation towards more equal outcomes through normative
frameworks and policy guidance.

It is necessary for rural development organizations to adopt digital-

inclusion narratives based on the three factors that improve digital
inclusion identified in this report: (i) marginalized-group- and
gender-responsive digitalization, (ii) ensuring offline alternatives,
and (iii) tackling digital divides across all levels. This narrative
can assist rural development organizations and practitioners in
adapting organizational practices and implementing programmes

©FAO/Isak Amin

95
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

that address digital exclusion and avoid exacerbating inequalities.

Once an internal normative framework is in place, a digital-inclusion
guideline can be developed to help partner rural development
organizations improve digital inclusion. Such a tool can help rural
development organizations and digital agriculture practitioners
integrate inclusive practices into programme/project design and
field operations.

There is a lack of data that comprehensively considers the

multidimensional nature of the digital divide, including after-access
barriers such as: slow internet speeds, insufficient data, intermittent
access, lack of digital skills, reliance on others for connectivity, and
the use of subpar devices. Digital-inclusion surveys based on the
new conceptualization can help better inform policymakers, UN
agencies and partner programming regarding beneficiary needs
and their digital realities. Efforts should be made to disaggregate
survey data by gender and other groups at risk of digital exclusion
(e.g. Indigenous groups, racial and ethnic minorities, migrants, and
persons with disabilities) in order to capture diverse experiences
within countries. Further disaggregation of surveys using UN
geospatial frameworks that categorize rural areas based on
agricultural potential, access to markets, population density and
development domains can help account for heterogeneity between
rural areas. Data collected and analysed through surveys can be
assessed against an index similar to A4AI’s Meaningful Connectivity
Index which compiles minimum connectivity thresholds (4G
speeds, smartphone or PC access, unlimited data and daily use).
Such composite indicators could help improve comparison across
time and contexts in ways that better capture the multidimensional
nature of the digital divide and risks of digital exclusion.

Importantly, these initiatives should not be limited to the

development of technical papers or data collection, but should also
aim to raise awareness and enhance digital literacy and capabilities.
It is recommended that concerned entities provide digital-inclusion
and digital-divide training to their staff and other rural development
stakeholders through their respective e-learning platforms, focusing
on understanding the potential benefits and risks associated with
technology and innovation for individuals living in poverty or
vulnerable situations.

Beyond these above-proposed actions, providing technical

assistance to national and regional institutes to strengthen their
capacity to generate and collect data related to digital inclusion
is crucial, as well as providing technical support to other rural
development actors, private sector entities and government agencies
on implementing digital solutions that effectively address digital
exclusion and divides. In this regard, exploring opportunities to
leverage the International Platform for Digital Food and Agriculture
can be a means for FAO to promote a deeper understanding of digital
inclusion among various stakeholders engaged in digital agriculture,
by sharing case studies and best practices on addressing digital
exclusion to help promote knowledge exchange and the replication
of successful approaches.

96
 4 Conclusions and Recommendations

4.3 Adopt a gender-

and marginalized-group-
responsive approach
The digitalization of sectors vital to the well-being of rural
communities is currently being carried out in ways that are not
adequately responsive to the needs of all people living in rural areas,
especially women and marginalized groups. The responsiveness
of digital solutions and digitalization efforts could be improved
through the adoption of a human-rights approach and the digital
development principles, which both emphasize the importance
of people-centred design. Ensuring the meaningful and effective
participation of intended users from marginalized backgrounds
(for example rural women, young people, Indigenous Peoples,
racial and ethnic minorities, migrants, and persons with disabilities)
throughout the entire digital solution lifecycle (ideation, design,
pilot testing, implementation, and evaluation) can significantly help
improve the chances that digital solutions will fit their realities and
meet their needs.

Adopting a holistic approach and employing multifaceted strategies

is crucial to fostering digital inclusion. For example, FAO’s experience
has found that local assessments to identify the various barriers
and exclusionary factors that hinder specific groups and individuals
from reaping the benefits of digital technology adaptation are
necessary. These factors may include limited financial resources,
discrimination, illiteracy or digital isolation. Thus, allocating
appropriate budgets and designing programmes responsive to
the needs of marginalized groups in rural areas – and promoting
gender responsiveness – are essential to direct resources where
they are most needed.

In addition, making apps and digital content available in languages

spoken by the target users and in formats that are accessible and
user-friendly can help break down language and accessibility
barriers that hinder access.

4.4 Ensure offline

participation opportunities
for rural populations
The overarching SDG objective calls for development actors to
“reach the furthest behind first.” In the context of digital rural
transformations, this means prioritizing the needs of groups least
able to make use of digital technology.

It is important to acknowledge that rural women and marginalized

segments of the rural population will continue to be less able to
engage digitally in the short- and medium-term. Thus, additional

97
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

©FAO/Anis Mili

offline options will often be the only way to ensure that they are
able to fully participate in society and that digitalization does not
result in their exclusion. Multichannel service delivery that mixes
digital (e.g. apps, SMS, websites, chatbots, call-centres, etc.) and
offline service delivery mechanisms (e.g. service centres, kiosks,
postal services, etc.) should be promoted as best practice. Multi-
channel approaches foster inclusion by providing people with
choice the most suitable means of engagement, and including
options for those who may prefer to engage offline.

Offline service delivery does not necessarily contradict digital

transformations. In fact, digital transformation can help improve the
efficiency and cost effectiveness of offline alternatives given that
digital technology can serve as the infrastructure that connects the
back-end of all service delivery channels, thus creating a service
delivery landscape that is larger than the sum of its parts.

The digital landscape maps proposed in section 4.1 can play a crucial
role in identifying sectors where offline options have been reduced
or eliminated. These maps can uncover sectors that are contributing
to the exclusion of offline and less connected populations, allowing
for targeted actions and strategic resource allocation. The maps can
also inform advocacy for the (re)introduction of offline mechanisms
in sectors and areas where they are currently absent.

98
 4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Collaboration with various stakeholders is essential given the cross-

sectoral nature of this trend. Technical support should be extended
to government agencies, civil society organizations, private
sector entities, and other development actors to encourage the
integration of offline alternatives into their digital solutions from
the very beginning.

Additionally, continuing support for digital intermediaries who

facilitate access to digital technology for rural populations should
be taken into consideration. This may include providing financial
contributions or in-kind support in the form of equipment, internet
access and training to digital intermediaries to empower them to
serve their communities more effectively.

4.5 Promote access to

digital technology and address
after-access barriers
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to fully ensure that all actors
in every sector relevant to the well-being of rural communities
digitalize their services and operations in ways that are inclusive.
Thus, efforts will also be needed to bridge the digital divides to help
rural communities access content, services and opportunities from
providers and sectors outside the influence of FAO and partners.

It is crucial for UN agencies like FAO to effectively collaborate

with relevant stakeholders to tackle access barriers, including
the affordability of data and devices, access to electricity and
identification requirements, by improving the inclusivity of digital
infrastructure deployment through the provision of technical
assistance on gender-responsive budgeting and programming to
USFs. Such guidance can help ensure that the specific needs and
priorities of rural women and other marginalized rural groups are
adequately considered when USFs are used to deploy infrastructure
or implement digital-inclusion projects.

Addressing after-access barriers is necessary to ensure effective

digital technology use in rural areas. The lack of digital skills
among smallholder farmers and rural communities is a major after-
access barrier that must be addressed through large-scale training
programmes. Digital-skills training should be made available to
rural people of all ages. Primary and secondary schools should
incorporate it in their curriculum. Additional efforts will be needed
to provide widespread digital-skills training for people of working
age and out of school. Given the pace of technological change,
training programmes will need to be periodically updated to keep
pace. Providing dynamic digital-skills training at scale will require
significant capacity building and collaboration efforts. FAO can
foster sustainable, locally-led efforts to enhance digital literacy
by building the capacity of governments and non-state actors
to provide digital training. Digital-skills trainings will need to be

99
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

designed in ways that take the specific needs of rural women, older
people and other marginalized groups into account. For example,
digital-skills training may need to be tailored to the schedules
of rural women and other marginalized groups. Separate digital
training for women and other marginalized groups may improve
access to training and learning outcomes in situations where social
norms or discrimination hinder their full participation.

When providing devices to smallholders and other beneficiaries, it

is important to ensure that the devices provided are sufficiently
secure. One factor to consider when providing smartphones is
whether the model will continue to receive security patches and
software updates for the duration of its intended use, or longer if
possible.

It is essential to consider how issues of autonomy may affect usage

of digital technologies and digital solutions. This is especially true
for users who mainly access digital technologies through borrowed
devices or who have their access mediated by others. These issues
have been shown to affect women more than men and can have
implications for the types of digital activities users can engage in
and tasks that users can perform.

It is important that all organizations working on digital inclusion in

rural areas are aware of these after-access barriers and consider
them in their programming to mitigate their impact on smallholders
and rural communities.

4.6 Reducing the

structural inequalities that
lead to digital divides
In an increasingly digital world, it is more important than ever to
tackle poverty and structural inequalities alongside digital divides.
FAO and partners must double down efforts to address disparities
between urban and rural areas, between men and women, as well
as between marginalized and better-off groups within rural areas.
Effectively reducing structural inequalities and poverty levels
requires persistent efforts over time rather than quick fixes. Strong
collaboration between stakeholders from all sectors affecting the
lives of rural communities is needed to overcome the deep-rooted
issues that plague rural development.

Levels of education are strongly correlated with digital technology

adoption, digital-skills acquisition and the ability to benefit from the
use of technology. Initiatives strengthening access to education and
improving educational outcomes for smallholder farmers and rural
populations should continue to be prioritized, especially for women
and marginalized groups. This includes support for lifelong learning

100
 4 Conclusions and Recommendations

opportunities which can help foster continuous skill development

and knowledge acquisition for smallholders and rural communities.

Social and gender norms are often more entrenched and restrictive
in rural LMIC contexts. Efforts to address social norms that may
hinder rural women from accessing, owning and using digital
technology autonomously should be strengthened. Interventions at
the family and community levels are essential to ensure the long-
term sustainability of such efforts.

People living in rural areas, women and marginalized groups

are less represented in technology companies, policymaking
and decision-making fora, and in national and international ICT
governing bodies. This results in digital solutions and ICT policies
that do not adequately consider or meet their needs. Efforts are
needed to increase the participation of rural communities and rural
women in the design of digital solutions, policies and investments
that impact their well-being. At a more transformative level, it is
important to increase their representation in technology sector
roles and policymaking positions with power.

As a result of spatial inequalities, local and grassroots organizations

from rural areas have less capacity to make use of digital
technologies to advance their causes. UN agencies and global
development organizations should strengthen their support for
rural organizations to help ensure that they are able to engage
digitally. Support could be made available in the form of funding or
through in-kind digital equipment and digital-skills training. Rural
organizations that may require such support include producer
organizations, specialized cooperatives, rural advisory groups,
local for-profit enterprises, NGOs, farmer and business associations,
CBOs, local government agencies and paragovernmental entities.

Informal institutions will also need to be strengthened or reformed

to improve digital outcomes for smallholders and rural communities.
The prevalence of market failures in many rural areas can limit
the success and utility of digital agriculture solutions and digital
marketplaces. Addressing market failures is an intractable complex
problem that requires collaboration with governments, rural
development actors, the private sector and smallholders.

Last but not least, LICs and LMICs should be supported in developing
their digital agriculture strategies. Current joint initiatives between
UN specialized organizations such as the partnership between
FAO and ITU in the result of e-Agriculture Strategy and National
Strategy Guide, should be leveraged for this cause. An effective
digital agriculture strategy should prioritize digital inclusion and
meeting the needs of rural populations, particularly women and
marginalized groups.

101
Somalia
GPS tracking devices in preparation
for aerial spraying to fight against locust
swarms (UTF/SOM/062/SOM).
©FAO/Arete/Ismail Taxta
 REFERENCES

A4AI (Alliance for Affordable Internet). Aldashev, A. & Batkeyev, B. 2021. Broadband
2020a. Investing in access with USAFs. In: infrastructure and economic growth in rural areas.
Alliance for Affordable Internet. Washington, DC. Information Economics and Policy, 57 100936.
[Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link] [Link]
good-practices/investing-in-access-with-usafs/
Anbumozhi, V., Babu, S., Bollino, C.A., Diyanah,
S.M., Hidayat, V.W., Kozono, M., Kumar, A. et al.
A4AI. 2020b. Building inclusive Universal
2022. Digital transformation of agri-food system:
Service and Access Fund (USAF) projects. In:
Policy pathways for greater socio-economic
Alliance for Affordable Internet. Washington, DC.
inclusion, sustainability, and international
[Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]
cooperation. Task Force 4, Food Security and
good-practices/building-inclusive-universal-
Sustainable Agriculture. Policy Brief. Jakarta, G20
service-and-access-fund-usaf-projects/
Insights. [Link]
A4AI. 2022. Advancing meaningful connectivity
APC (Association for Progressive Communications).
towards active and participatory digital societies.
2018. Mapping research in gender and digital
Washington, DC, Alliance for Affordable Internet.
technology. Melville, South Africa. [Link]
[Link]
org/sites/default/files/IDRC_Mapping_0323_0.pdf
Abay, K.A., Asnake, W., Ayalew, H., Chamberlin, J.
Apolitical. 2022. Scaling public sector innovations
& Sumberg, J. 2020. Landscapes of opportunity:
in the Global South: A case study from Bangladesh.
patterns of young people’s engagement with the
In: Apolitical. London. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https://
rural economy in sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal
[Link]/4mxa8aas
of Development Studies, 57(4): 594–613. [Link]
org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1808195 Arathoon, L., Raithatha, R. & Tricarico, D. 2021.
COVID-19: Accelerating the use of digital agriculture.
African Union. 2020. Digital transformation strategy
GSMA, London. [Link]
for Africa (2020–2030). Addis Ababa. [Link]
com/2ckbhtfh Ashworth, B. 2021. 3G service is going away next
year. Here’s what that means. In: Wired. Boone, IA,
Ahlgren, E., Azevedo, J.P., Bergmann, J.,
USA. [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
Brossard, M., Chang, G.-C., Chakroun, B.,
story/3g-service-sunset-what-it-means/
Cloutier, M.‑H., Mizunoya, S., Reuge, N. &
Rogers, H. 2022. The global education crisis – even Bakshi, P. 2014. Beware the OTC trap. In: MSC.
more severe than previously estimated. In: World [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
Bank Blogs. Washington, DC. [Cited 1 April 2024]. net/2014/05/09/beware-the-otc-trap/
[Link]
Bansal, V. 2021. India’s CoWin vaccine booking
education-crisis-even-more-severe-previously-
system is a nightmare. In: Wired. Boone, IA, USA.
estimated
[Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
Akbar, M., Abdullah, Naveed, A. & Syed, S.H. india-covid-vaccine-cowin/
2022. Does an Improvement in rural infrastructure
Barattini, B., Perin, G., Alvarenga, K. &
contribute to alleviate poverty in Pakistan? A spatial
Valiyaparambil, V.L. 2022. Digital innovations in
econometric analysis. Social Indicators Research,
delivering social protection in rural areas: Lessons
162: 475–499. [Link]
for public provisioning during the post-pandemic
02851-z
recovery and beyond. Rome, Food and Agriculture
Aker, J.C., Ghosh, I. & Burrell, J. 2016. The promise Organization of the United Nations, and Brasilia,
(and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture initiatives. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
Agricultural Economics, 47: 35–48. [Link] [Link]
org/10.1111/agec.12301

103
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Barrie, G. & Wills, A. 2016. Digital agriculture in Carter, B., Roelen, K., Enfield, S. & Avis, W. 2019.
emerging markets. Insights, June 2016. [Cited 1 April Social protection topic guide. Revised Edition. K4D
2024]. [Link] Emerging Issues Report 18. Brighton, UK, Institute of
Development Studies.
Better Than Cash Alliance. 2021. Improving
humanitarian payments through digital innovation: Castañeda, A., Doan, D., Nguyen, M.C., Uematsu,
Challenges and opportunities. New York, USA. H. & Azevedo, J.P. 2016. Who are the poor in the
[Link] developing world? Policy Research Working Paper
No. 7844. Washington, DC, World Bank. [Link]
BLW (Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture). 2018.
org/10.1596/1813-9450-7844
Charter on the digitalization of Swiss agriculture
and food production. Bern. [Link] Castaño-Pulgarín, S.A., Suárez-Betancur, N.,
bddvmz48 Vega, L.M.T. & López, H.M.H. 2021. Internet, social
media and online hate speech. Systematic review.
Braesemann, F., Stephany, F., Teutloff, O., Kässi,
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58: 101608.
O., Graham, M. & Lehdonvirta, V. 2022. The
[Link]
global polarisation of remote work. PLOS ONE,
17: e0274630. [Link] Chamberlin, J., Pender, J. & Yu, B. 2006.
pone.0274630 Development domains for Ethiopia: Capturing the
geographical context of smallholder development
Brennen, J.S. & Kreiss, D. 2016. Digitalization.
options. DSGD Discussion Papers 43, Washington,
In: K.B. Jensen, R.T. Craig, J. Pooley & E.W.
DC, International Food Policy Research Institute.
Rothenbuhler, eds. The international encyclopedia
of communication theory and philosophy. Chandra, R. & Collis, S. 2021. Digital agriculture
Hoboken, USA, Wiley-Blackwell. [Link] for small-scale producers: Challenges and
org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect111 opportunities. Communications of the ACM, 64:
75–84. [Link]
Bryant, J. 2022. Digital tools deepen the power
imbalance in aid. Here’s how to fix that. In: The New Chirchir, R. 2020. 7 ways technology can help
Humanitarian. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 1 April the social protection response to COVID-19. In:
2024]. [Link] Development Pathways. Sidcup, UK. [Cited 1 April
2024]. [Link]
Brynjolfsson, E. & McAfee, A. 2014. The second
machine age. New York, USA, W.W. Norton & Chong, Z. 2017. Bangladesh bans phone companies
Company. from selling SIM cards to Rohingya refugees. In: CBS
News. [Cited 15 December 2022]. [Link]
Buskens, I. & Webb, A., eds. 2009. African women
com/4zvuf5xt
and ICTs: Investigating technology, gender and
empowerment. Ottawa, International Development Clark, J., Metz, A. & Casher, C. 2021. ID4D Global
Research Centre. Dataset 2021, Volume 1: Global ID coverage
estimates. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://
CaLP. 2020. The State of the World’s Cash 2020.
[Link]/2wn5fz35
Oxford, UK, CaLP Network [Link]
yrww9yzr Crawford, K. 2013. The hidden biases in big data. In:
Harvard Business Review. Boston, USA. [Cited 1 April
Canares, M. 2015. Is there a need to reframe the
2024]. [Link]
open data discourse? In: LinkedIn. Sunnyvale,
in-big-data
USA. [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
com/pulse/need-reframe-open-data-discourse- Cunningham, S. 2011. Understanding market failures
michael-ca%C3%B1ares/ in an economic development context. Mesopartner
Monograph 4. Pretoria, Mesopartner. [Link]
Caribou Digital & Qhala. 2020. The experience of
org/10.13140/2.1.4734.6562
platform livelihoods in the Global South: A literature
review. Farnham, UK, Caribou Digital Publishing.
[Link]

104
 REFERENCES

Delaporte, A. 2021. The state of mobile internet FAO. 2018a. Gender and ICTs: Mainstreaming gender
connectivity in sub-Saharan Africa: Why addressing in the use of information and communication
the barriers to mobile internet use matters now technologies (ICTs) for agriculture and rural
more than ever. In: GSMA – Mobile for Development. development, by Sophie Treinen and Alice Van
London. [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link] der Elstraeten. Rome. [Link]
yc7a8y9a f02215d2-en

Digital Agri Hub. 2024. Dashboard. In: Digital Agri FAO. 2018b. Digital Inclusion: Tackling poverty and
Hub. Wageningen, The Kingdom of the Netherlands. hunger through information and communication
[Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link] technologies (ICTs). Rome.
[Link]/web/guest/dashboardframe
FAO. 2021. Gender-responsive digitalization: A critical
DiMaggio, P. & Hargittai, E. 2001. From the ‘digital component of the COVID-19 response in Africa. Accra.
divide’ to ‘digital inequality’: Studying internet use as [Link]
penetration increases. Princeton Center for Arts and
FAO. 2022. FAO Science and Innovation Strategy.
Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper 15. Princeton,
In: European Commission – Knowledge for policy.
USA, Princeton Center for Arts and Cultural Policy
Brussels. [Cited 29 March 2024]. [Link]
Studies.
yfz49s39
Ericsson. 2021. Follow the journey to 6G. In: Ericsson.
FAO, CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and
com. Stockholm. [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
Rural Cooperation) & IFAD (International Fund
[Link]/en/6g
for Agricultural Development). 2014. Youth and
Eubanks, V. 2018. Automating inequality: How high- agriculture: key challenges and concrete solutions.
tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New Rome, FAO. [Link]
York, USA, St. Martin’s Press.
FAO, IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural
Faith, B. 2018. Maintenance affordances, capabilities Development), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s
and structural inequalities: Mobile phone use by Fund) & WHO (World Health Organization). 2022.
low-income women. Information Technologies & The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
International Development (Special Section), 14: 2022: Repurposing food and agricultural policies
66–80. to make healthy diets more affordable. Rome. FAO.
[Link]
Faith, B., Hernandez, K. & Beecher, J. 2022. Digital
poverty in the UK. IDS Policy Briefing 202. Brighton, FAO, IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural
UK, Institute of Development Studies. [Link] Development) & WFP (World Food Programme).
org/10.19088/IDS.2022.057 2020. Gender transformative approaches for
food security, improved nutrition and sustainable
Fan, S. & Rue, C. 2020. The role of smallholder farms
agriculture – A compendium of fifteen good practices.
in a changing world. In: S. Gomez y Paloma, L. Riesgo
Rome. [Link]
& K. Louhichi, eds. The role of smallholder farms
in food and nutrition security. pp. 13–28. Cham, FAO & ITU (International Telecommunication
Switzerland, Springer. [Link] Union). 2016. E-agriculture strategy guide: Piloted
030-42148-9_2 in Asia–Pacific countries. Bangkok. [Link]
org/3/[Link]
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations). 2015. e-agriculture 10 year Review FAO & Zhejiang University. 2020. Digital Agriculture
Report, Implementation of the World Summit on Forum – Highlights. Hangzhou, China, 2–6 December
the Information Society (WSIS) Action Line C7. ICT 2020. Rome. [Link]
Applications: e-agriculture, by Kristin Kolshus,
Antonella Pastore, Sophie Treinen and Alice Van der
Elstraeten. Rome.

105
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Fisher, T. 2022. 5G availability around the world. In: GSMA. 2021a. Access to mobile services and proof of
Lifewire. New York, USA. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https:// identity 2021: Revisiting SIM registration and know
[Link]/5g-availability-world-4156244 your customer (KYC) contexts during COVID-19.
London. [Link]
Gentilini, U., Almenfi, M.B.A, Dale, P., Lopez, A.V.,
Mujica Canas, I.V., Cordero, R.E.Q. & Zafar, U. GSMA. 2021b. The mobile economy: Sub-Saharan
2020. Social protection and jobs responses to Africa 2021. London. [Link]
COVID-19: A real-time review of country measures
GSMA. 2021c. The State of Mobile Internet
(June 12, 2020). COVID-19 Living Paper. Washington,
Connectivity 2021. London. [Link]
DC, World Bank. [Link]
com/4b6kpd4k
Gentilini, U., Iyengar, H.T.M.M., Okamura, Y.,
GSMA. 2021d. Understanding people’s mobile digital
Downes, J.A., Dale, P., Weber, M. et al. 2022. Social
skills needs. Insights from India and Ghana. London.
protection and jobs responses to COVID-19: A real-
[Link]
time review of country measures. COVID-19 Living
Paper version 16 (February 2, 2022). Washington, GSMA. 2021e. Developing mobile digital skills in low-
DC, World Bank. [Link] and middle-income countries. London. https://
[Link]/3tmrmhz8
Girl Effect. 2018. Real girls, real lives, connected: A
global study of access and usage of mobile, told GSMA. 2022a. The State of Mobile Internet
through 3000 voices. New York, USA, Girl Effect and Connectivity 2022. London. [Link]
London, Vodafone Foundation. com/3uf7vxfe
Global Agriculture. n.d. Women in agriculture. GSMA. 2022b. The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2022.
In: Global Agriculture. Berlin. [Cited 1 April 2024]. London. [Link]
[Link]
GSMA. 2022c. State of the Industry Report on
[Link]
Mobile Money 2022. London. [Link]
Global Wireless Solutions. 2020. Inadequate home mwdm3vx3
internet speeds are contributing to the ‘digital
Gugganig, M. & Bronson, K. 2022. Digital agriculture
divide’ during lockdown across both urban and rural
and the promise of immateriality. In: D. Szanto, A.
areas. In: Global Wireless Solutions. Dulles, VA, USA.
Di Battista & I. Knezevic, eds. Food studies: Matter,
[Cited 1 April 2024] [Link]
meaning & movement. Ottawa, Food Studies Press.
Gonzales, A. 2016. The contemporary US [Link]
digital divide: from initial access to technology
Gurstein, M.B. 2011. Open data: Empowering the
maintenance. Information, Communication &
empowered or effective data use for everyone? First
Society, 19(2): 234–248.
Monday, 16(2). [Link]
Goudeau, S., Sanrey, C., Stanczak, A., Manstead,
Hackfort, S. 2021. Patterns of inequalities in
A. & Darnon, C. 2021. Why lockdown and distance
digital agriculture: A systematic literature
learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely
review. Sustainability, 13(22): 12345. [Link]
to increase the social class achievement gap.
org/10.3390/su132212345
Nature Human Behaviour, 5: 1273–1281. [Link]
org/10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7 Hammond, J., Siegal, K., Milner, D., Elimu, E., Vail,
T., Cathala, P., Gatera, A., et al. 2022. Perceived
GSMA. 2013. Survey of Universal Service Funds: Key
effects of COVID-19 restrictions on smallholder
findings. In: GSMA. London. [Cited 1 April 2024].
farmers: Evidence from seven lower- and middle-
[Link]
income countries. Agricultural Systems, 198: 103367.
GSMA. 2016a. Consumer barriers to mobile internet [Link]
adoption in Africa. London.
Heeks, R. 2022. Digital inequality beyond the digital
GSMA. 2016b. Are Universal Service Funds an divide: conceptualizing adverse digital incorporation
effective way to achieve universal access? In: GSMA in the global South. Information Technology for
– Mobile for Development. London. [Cited 1 April Development, 28(4): 688–704. [Link]
2024]. [Link] 0/02681102.2022.2068492

106
 REFERENCES

Helsper, E.J. 2012. A corresponding fields model IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural
for the links between social and digital exclusion. Development). 2021. Rural Development Report
Communication Theory, 22: 403–426. 2021. Transforming food systems for rural prosperity.
IFAD. Rome.
Helsper, E. 2021. The digital disconnect: the social
causes and consequences of digital inequalities. IFAD. 2022. More climate finance in support of small-
Newbury Park, CA, USA, SAGE. scale farmers is urgently needed, warns IFAD at
Stockholm+50. In: IFAD. Rome. [Cited 1 April 2024].
Hernandez, K. 2019. Achieving complex development
[Link]
goals along China’s Digital Silk Road. K4D
Emerging Issues Report. Brighton, UK, Institute of ILO (International Labour Organization). 2019.
Development Studies. World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2019.
Geneva, Switzerland.
Hernandez, K. & Faith, B. 2022. Measuring digital
exclusion. Digit Data Commentary 01. Brighton, UK ILO. 2022. World Social Protection Report 2020–22:
Digital Futures at Work, University of Sussex. Social Protection at the crossroads – in pursuit of a
better future. Geneva, Switzerland.
Hernandez, K. & Faith, B. 2020. The crisis of digital
exclusion in hyper connected times. In: Institute of InterMedia. 2016. Kenya: Wave 4 Report FII Tracker
Development Studies. Brighton, UK. [Cited 1 April Survey. Financial Inclusion Insights. Washington, DC,
2024]. [Link] Inter Media and Seattle, USA, Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. [Link]
Hernandez, K. & Roberts, T. 2018. Leaving no one
behind in a digital world. K4D Emerging Issues Isenberg, S. 2019. Investing in information and
Report. Brighton, UK, Institute of Development communication technologies to reach gender
Studies. equality and empower rural women. Rome, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Herrmann, R.T. 2017. Large-scale agricultural
[Link]
investments and smallholder welfare: A comparison
of wage labor and outgrower channels in Tanzania. ITU (International Telecommunication Union).
World Development, 90: 294–310. [Link] 2013. Universal Service Fund and digital inclusion
org/10.1016/[Link].2016.10.007 for all. Report. Geneva, Switzerland. [Link]
com/yjuxfrvy
Hilbert, M. 2014. Technological information inequality
as an incessantly moving target: The redistribution ITU. 2017. Fast-forward progress: Leveraging tech to
of information and communication capacities achieve the global goals. Geneva, Switzerland.
between 1986 and 2010. Journal of the Association
ITU. 2021a. Measuring digital development: Facts and
for Information Science and Technology, 65: 821–
figures 2021. Geneva, Switzerland.
835. [Link]
ITU. 2021b. Statistics. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland.
Hira, A. & Agarwal, S. 2021. Intelligence Brief: What
[Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link]
does 2021 hold for network sunsets? In: GSMA
com/48kcy5p3
Intelligence – Media Centre. London, [Cited 1 April
2024]. [Link] ITU. 2021c. The ITU ICT SDG indicators. In: ITU.
Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 28 March 2024]. https://
Hölzl, V. 2021. As violence soars in refugee
[Link]/3ere3txk
camps, Rohingya women speak up. In: The New
Humanitarian. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 1 April Jack, M., Chen, J. & Jackson, S.J. 2017.
2024]. [Link] Infrastructure as creative action: Online buying,
selling, and delivery in Phnom Penh. In: CHI’17:
Human Rights Watch. 2021. Problems with
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human
education around the world during Covid-19. New
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 6511–6522. New
York, USA. [Link]
York, USA, Association for Computing Machinery.
[Link]

107
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Jafarli, I. 2021. Effective public service delivery: Kronke, M. 2020. Africa’s digital divide and the
The case of Azerbaijan. International Journal of promise of e-learning. Afrobarometer Policy Paper
Civil Service Reform and Practice, 6(1): 153. https:// No. 66. Accra, Afrobarometer. [Link]
[Link]/mepde7cp com/56ur44ua

Jane, E.A. 2017. Gendered cyberhate: A new digital Kuntsman, A. & Miyake, E. 2022. Paradoxes of digital
divide? In: M. Ragnedda & G.W. Muschert, eds. disengagement. London, University of Westminster
Theorizing digital divides. Abingdon, UK, Routledge. Press.

Kaiser, N. & Barstow, C.K. 2022. Rural transportation Lattanzio, J., Maroun, S. & Rewald, R. 2017.
infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries: Women and girls’ education: The overlooked link
A review of impacts, implications, and interventions. for achieving SDG 2. In: IISD SDG Knowledge Hub.
Sustainability, 14(4): 2149. [Link] Winnipeg, Canada. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https://
su14042149 [Link]/3ndsj94w

Karimil, I. 2022. ASAN Service Center launches Lewis, P. 2017. ‘Our minds can be hijacked’: the tech
operations in Azerbaijan’s liberated territory. In: insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia. In: The
Caspian News. Baku. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https:// Guardian. London. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https://
[Link]/232fny5a [Link]/57bha326

Karydas, C., Chatziantoniou, M., Stamkopoulos, K., Lind, J., Sabates-Wheeler, R. & Szyp, C. 2022. Cash
Iatrou, M., Vassiliadis, V. & Mourelatos, S. 2023. and livelihoods in contexts of conflict and fragility:
Embedding a precision agriculture service into a Implications for social assistance programming.
farm management information system – ifarma/ BASIC Research Working Paper 8. Brighton, UK,
PreFer. Smart Agricultural Technology, 4: 100175. Institute of Development Studies. [Link]
[Link] org/10.19088/BASIC.2022.008

Kemal, A. 2022. Data identity platforms in Malala Fund. 2018. Full force: Why the world works
reconfiguration of state-citizen relationships in better when girls go to school. In: Malala Fund.
social cash programmes. In: Development Studies Washington, DC. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https://
Association – Past conferences – 2022 – Just [Link]/
sustainable futures in an urbanising and mobile
[Link]. n.d. Malaysia Government Call
world. [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
Centre (MyGCC). In: MyGovernment. Cyberjaya,
conference/dsa2022/paper/64668
Malaysia. [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
Kim, M.J. & Nangia, R. 2010. Infrastructure [Link]/portal/content/30044
development in India and China: A comparative
Maréchal, N. 2017. How cheap smartphones leave
analysis. In: W. Ascher & C. Krupp, eds. Physical
the poor more vulnerable. In: Slate. Brooklyn,
infrastructure development, pp. 97–139. New York,
NY, USA. [Cited 1 April 2024]. [Link]
Palgrave Macmillan US
com/3s6csmh3
Kim, J., Rose, P., Tiruneh, D.T., Sabates, R. &
Martin, C., Hope, S. & Zubairi, S. 2016. The role of
Woldehanna, T. 2021. Learning inequalities widen
digital exclusion in social exclusion. Edinburgh, UK,
following COVID-19 school closures in Ethiopia.
Ipsos MORI Scotland and Dunfermline, UK, Carnegie
In: RISE. Oxford, UK. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https://
UK Trust. [Link]
[Link]/blog/learning-inequalities-
widen-COVID-19-Ethiopia Mason, K., Wagg, S., Ge, B., Harrison, B., Hayes,
N., Perez, D., Walker, T. & Wilkes, M. 2022. Digital
Kosec, K. & Wantchekon, L. 2020. Can information
poverty transformation: accessing digital services
improve rural governance and service delivery?
in rural northwest communities. London, The British
World Development, 125: 104376. [Link]
Academy.
org/10.1016/[Link].2018.07.017

108
 REFERENCES

McGee, R. 2014. Something’s stopping all voices from Office for Students. 2020. ‘Digital poverty’ risks
counting. In: Making All Voices Count. [Cited 2 April leaving students behind. In: Office for Students.
2024]. [Link] London. [Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
somethings-stopping-voices-counting/ com/5esruwxd

Mendoza, R.U. & Thelen, N. 2008. Innovations Ogiemwonyi Arakpogun, E., Wanjiru, R.
to make markets more inclusive for the poor. & Whalley, J. 2017. Impediments to the
Development Policy Review, 26: 427–458. https:// implementation of universal service funds in
[Link]/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2008.00417.x Africa. A cross-country comparative analysis.
Telecommunications Policy, 41: 617–630.
Mercy Corps Agrifin Accelerate. 2019. AFA Case
[Link]
Study: Digital pathways for youth in agriculture.
Nairobi, Mercy Corps Agrifin Accelerate and Paltasingh, K.R. & Goyari, P. 2018. Impact of farmer
MasterCard Foundation. education on farm productivity under varying
technologies: case of paddy growers in India.
Microsoft. n.d. System requirements for Microsoft
Agriculture and Food Economics, 6: 7. [Link]
Teams (free). In: Microsoft Support. Seattle, USA.
org/10.1186/s40100-018-0101-9
[Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
Parsons, D., Thomas, H. & Wishart, J. 2016.
Moore, M. 2021. Microsoft Teams will no longer see
Exploring mobile affordances in the digital
any updates on iOS 13 or older. In: TechRadar Pro.
classroom. In: I. Arnedillo-Sanchez, & P. Isias, eds.
[Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Morshed, K., Rahman, A., Hussain, F., Jahangir, Z. Mobile Learning 2016, pp. 43–50. IADIS Press.
& Islam, T. 2021. Exploring the usage trends and
Peixoto, T. & Fox, J. 2016. When does ICT-enabled
impacts of different digital platforms among FDMNs.
citizen voice lead to government responsiveness?
Dhaka, BRAC.
WDR 2016 Background Paper. Washington, DC, World
Nelson, J. 2020. No smallholder farmer left behind. Bank.
In: H. Kharas, J.W. McArthur & I. Ohno, eds. Leave no
Pon, B. 2020. The race to digitize commerce in sub-
one behind: Time for specifics on the Sustainable
Saharan Africa. In: Medium. San Francisco, CA, USA.
Development Goals, pp. 59–78. Washington, DC,
[Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
Brookings Institution Press.
Prieger, J.E. 2003. The supply side of the digital
Neves, B.B. & Fonseca, J.R.S. 2015. Latent Class
divide: Is there equal availability in the broadband
Models in action: Bridging social capital & Internet
internet access market? Economic Inquiry, 41: 346–
usage. Social Science Research, 50: 15–30. https://
363. [Link]
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2014.11.002
Principles for Digital Development. 2024. Principles
Ninh, L.K. 2020. Economic role of education in
for digital development. [Cited 1 April 2024]. https://
agriculture: evidence from rural Vietnam. Journal
[Link]/
of Economics and Development, 23: 47–58. https://
[Link]/10.1108/JED-05-2020-0052 Privacy International. 2021a. Exclusion by design:
how national ID systems make social protection
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
inaccessible to vulnerable populations. In: Privacy
and Development). 2022. Mending the education
International. London. [Cited 2 April 2024]. https://
divide: Getting strong teachers to the schools that
[Link]/dr33e9et
need them most. Paris, TALIS, OECD. [Link]
org/10.1787/92b75874-en Privacy International. 2021b. Myanmar: Dangerous
plans for a National Digital ID and Biometric SIM
OFCOM (Office of Communications). 2021. Adult’s
Card Registration must be scrapped. In: Privacy
Media Use and Attitudes report 2020/21. London.
International. London. [Cited 2 April 2024]. https://
[Link]/3athnysa

109
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

Ragnedda, M. & Ruiu, M. 2017. Social capital and the Schroeder, K., Lampietti, J. & Elabed, G. 2021.
three levels of digital divide. In: M. Ragnedda & G.W. What’s cooking: Digital transformation of the
Muschert, eds. Theorizing digital divides, pp. 21–34. agrifood system. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Abingdon, UK, Routledge.
Sciforce. 2023. Smart farming: The future of
Roberts, T. & Hernandez, K. 2017. The techno- agriculture. In: IoT For All. Rockville, MD, USA. [Cited
centric gaze: incorporating citizen participation 10 March 2023]. [Link]
technologies into participatory governance farming-future-of-agriculture
processes in the Philippines. Making All Voices
Selwyn, N., Johnson, N.F., Nemorin, S. & Knight, E.
Count Research Report. Brighton, Institute of
2016. Going online on behalf of others: An
Development Studies.
investigation of ‘proxy’ internet consumers. Sydney,
Robinson, L. 2009. A taste for the necessary: Australia, Australian Communications Consumer
A Bourdieuian approach to digital inequality. Action Network.
Information. Communication & Society, 12: 488–507.
Sewunet, Z. 2020. In Ethiopia: Keeping children
[Link]
learning during COVID-19. In: UNICEF – Ethiopia.
Robinson, L., Schulz, J., Dunn, H.S., Casilli, A.A., Addis Ababa. [Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
Tubaro, P., Carvath, R. & Chen, W. et al. 2020. com/4cnenxts
Digital inequalities 3.0: Emergent inequalities in the
Silver, L., Vogels, E.A., Mordecai, M., Cha, J.,
information age. First Monday, 25(7). [Link]
Rasmussen, R. & Rainie, L. 2019. Mobile divides
org/10.5210/fm.v25i7.10844
in emerging economies. In: Pew Research Center.
Roessler, P. 2018. The mobile phone revolution Washington, DC. [Cited 28 March 2024]. https://
and digital inequality: Scope, determinants and [Link]/bdf7ajez
consequences. Background Paper 15. Oxford, UK,
Smith, L.C. & Haddad, L. 2001. How important
Pathways for Prosperity Commission.
is improving food availability for reducing
Rogerson, J. 2022. How much data do I need? In: 3g. child malnutrition in developing countries?
Newport, UK, 3g. [Cited 28 March 2024]. [Link] Agricultural Economics, 26: 191–204. [Link]
[Link]/guides/how-much-data-do-i-need. org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00063.x

Schejter, A., Harush, B., Rivka, O. & Noam, T. Smith, E.B., Menon, T. & Thompson, L. 2012. Status
2015. Re-theorizing the “digital divide”: Identifying differences in the cognitive activation of social
dimensions of social exclusion in contemporary networks. Organization Science, 23(1): 67–82.
media technologies. Presented at the FACE [Link]
Conference: European Media Policy 2015: New
Stiglitz, J.E. 1989. Markets, market failures, and
Contexts, New Approaches, 9–10 April 2015.
development. The American Economic Review, 79:
Schoemaker, D.E. 2021. Social agriculture – 197–203.
understanding Kenyan farmers’ use of social media
Sweney, M. 2022. 3G mobile: will the UK network
platforms for agricultural practices. In: Medium. San
switch-off affect you? In: The Guardian. London.
Francisco, CA, USA. [Cited 2 April 2024]. https://
[Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
[Link]/25enrvx3
The Business Standard. 2021. Digital centres create
Schradie, J. 2011. The digital production gap:
entrepreneurs in rural Bangladesh. In: The Business
The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics,
Standard. Dhaka. [Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
39(2): 145–168. [Link]
com/ytvs7jk7
poetic.2011.02.003
Tirivayi, N., Knowles, M. & Davis, B. 2016. The
Schradie, J. 2018. The digital activism gap: How
interaction between social protection and
class and costs shape online collective action. Social
agriculture: A review of evidence. Global Food
Problems, 65(1): 51–74. [Link]
Security, 10: 52–62. [Link]
socpro/spx042
gfs.2016.08.004

110
 REFERENCES

Toyama, K. 2011. Technology as amplifier in UNICEF. 2021c. Youth and adult literacy rate. In:
international development. In: iConference ’11: UNICEF Data – Education Overview. [Cited 2 April
Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, pp. 75–82. 2024]. [Link]
New York, USA, Association for Computing
UNICEF. 2022a. Foundational learning skills. In:
Machinery. [Link]
UNICEF Data – Education Overview. [Cited 2 April
Toyama, K. 2015. Geek heresy: Rescuing social 2024]. [Link]
change from the cult of technology. New York, USA,
UNICEF. 2022b. Completion rates. In: UNICEF Data
PublicAffairs.
– Education Overview. [Cited 2 April 2024]. https://
Trendov, N.M., Varas, S. & Zeng, M. 2019a. Digital [Link]/2t2mx2p3
technologies in agriculture and rural areas. Briefing
UN (United Nations). 2001. Benchmarking
Paper. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization
e-government: A global perspective. Assessing
of the United Nations. [Link]
the progress of the UN Member States. New York,
ca4887en/[Link]
USA, United Nations Division for Public Economics
Trendov, N.M., Varas, S. & Zeng, M. 2019b. Digital and Public Administration, and Washington, DC,
technologies in agriculture and rural areas – Status American Society for Public Administration.
report. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization
UN. 2014. United Nations E-Government Survey 2014:
of the United Nations. [Link]
E-government for the future we want. New York,
ca4985en/[Link]
USA, United Nations Department of Economic and
Tsan, M., Totapally, S., Hailu, M. & Addom, B. 2019. Social Affairs.
The Digitalization of African Agriculture Report
UN. 2020. World Social Report 2020: Inequality in
2018–2019. Wageningen, The Kingdom of the
a rapidly changing world. New York, USA, United
Netherlands, Technical Centre for Agricultural and
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Rural Cooperation (CTA) and Dalberg Advisers.
United Nations. 2022. United Nations E-Government
UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social
Survey 2022: The future of digital government. New
Commission for Asia and the Pacific). 2017.
York, USA, United Nations Department of Economic
The impact of Universal Service Funds on fixed-
and Social Affairs. [Link]
broadband deployment and internet adoption in
Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok. United Nations General Assembly. 2019. Seventy-
fourth session. Agenda item 70 (b). Promotion and
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific
protection of human rights: human rights questions,
and Cultural Organization). 2018. Managing
including alternative approaches for improving
tomorrow’s digital skills – what conclusions can we
the effective enjoyment of human rights and
draw from international comparative indicators?
fundamental freedoms. New York, USA. https://
Working Papers on Education Policy 06. Paris,
[Link]/26as3wde
UNESCO.
United Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2021a.
Envoy on Technology & ITU (International
Reopening with resilience: Lessons from remote
Telecommunication Union). 2021. Achieving
learning during COVID-19 in West and Central Africa.
universal and meaningful digital connectivity.
New York, USA, UNICEF Education.
Setting a baseline and targets for 2030. New York,
UNICEF. 2021b. Ensuring equal access to education USA, United Nations. [Link]
in future crises: Findings of the new Remote
United Nations Secretary-General. 2020a. Report
Learning Readiness Index. In: UNICEF Data. New
of the Secretary-General: Roadmap for digital
York, USA. [Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
cooperation. New York, USA, United Nations.
com/5tpxf4f5

111
TOWARDS DIGITAL INCLUSION IN RURAL TRANSFORMATION

United Nations Secretary-General. 2020b. W3Techs. 2022. Usage statistics of content

Socially just transition towards sustainable languages for websites. In: W3Techs. [Cited
development: The role of digital technologies on 17 December 2022]. [Link]
social development and well-being of all. United technologies/overview/content_language
Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission
Warren, M. 2007. The digital vicious cycle:
for Sustainable Development, Fifty-ninth session,
Links between social disadvantage and digital
8–17 February 2021. E/CN.5/2021/3. New York,
exclusion in rural areas. Telecommunications
USA, United Nations. [Link]
Policy, 31(6–7): 374–388. [Link]
record/3895758?ln=en&v=pdf
telpol.2007.04.001
United Nations Statistics Division. 2022. SDG 7:
Weidmann, N.B., Benitez-Baleato, S., Hunziker,
Affordable and Clean Energy. In: United Nations –
P., Glatz, E. & Dimitropoulos, X. 2016. Digital
Sustainable Development Goals. New York, USA.
discrimination: Political bias in Internet service
[Cited 2 April 2024]. [Link]
provision across ethnic groups. Science, 353(6304):
report/2022/goal-07/
1151–1155. [Link]
Unwin, T. 2017. ICTs, sustainability and development:
Wesolowski, A., Eagle, N., Noor, A.M., Snow, R.W. &
Critical elements. In: A.R. Sharafat & W. Lehr, eds.
Buckee, C.O. 2012. Heterogeneous mobile phone
ICT-centric economic growth, innovation and job
ownership and usage patterns in Kenya. PLOS
creation 2017, pp. 37–71. Geneva, Switzerland, ITU.
ONE, 7: e35319. [Link]
Van Campenhout, B. 2017. There is an app for that? pone.0035319
The impact of community knowledge workers in
World Bank. 2016. World Development Report 2016:
Uganda. Information, Communication & Society,
Digital dividends. Washington, DC, World Bank.
20: 530–550. [Link]
8X.2016.1200644 World Bank. 2019a. Future of food: Harnessing digital
technologies to improve food system outcomes.
van Deursen, A.J.A.M. & Helsper, E.J. 2015. The
Washington, DC.
third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from
being online? In: Communication and Information World Bank. 2019b. World Development Report 2019:
Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and The changing nature of work. Washington, DC.
Communications, Vol. 10), pp. 29–52. Leeds, Emerald
World Bank. 2020. Poverty and Shared Prosperity
Group Publishing.
2020: Reversals of fortune. Washington, DC.
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T.A. & Zhang, X. 2020.
World Bank. 2022a. Toward productive, inclusive,
ICT for development in rural India: A longitudinal
and sustainable farms and agribusiness firms: An
study of women’s health outcomes. MIS Quarterly,
evaluation of the World Bank Group’s support for
44(2): 605–629. [Link]
the development of agrifood economies (2010–20).
MISQ/2020/12342
Washington, DC.
Vishwanath, A., Neo, L.S., Goh, P., Lee, S., Khader,
World Bank. 2022b. Indicators. In: The World Bank –
M., Ong, G. & Chin, J. 2020. Cyber hygiene:
Data. Washington, DC. [Cited 2 April 2024]. http://
The concept, its measure, and its initial tests.
[Link]/indicator
Decision Support Systems, 128: 113160. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2019.113160 World Bank. 2022c. Mini grids for half a billion people:
Market outlook and handbook for decision makers.
W3C. 2024. WCAG 2 Overview. In: W3C – Web
Washington, DC.
Accessibility Initiative. [Cited 29 March 2024].
[Link]
wcag/

112
 REFERENCES

World Bank, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, World Wide Web Foundation, A4AI, & UN Women.
Scientific and Cultural Organization) & UNICEF 2018. Universal Service and Access Funds: an
(United Nations Children’s Fund). 2021. The state untapped resource to close the gender digital divide.
of the global education crisis: A path to recovery. Washington, DC, Web Foundation.
Washington, DC, World Bank, Paris, UNESCO and
Yeboah, T. & Flynn, J. 2021. Rural youth employment
New York, USA, UNICEF. [Link]
in Africa: An evidence review. Evidence Synthesis
bpa3ue87
Paper 10/2021. Leiden, The Kingdom of the
World Broadband Association. 2022. Next- Netherlands, INCLUDE Knowledge Platform.
generation broadband roadmap. [Link]
com/4pfmpxx4

World Vision UK, INTRAC, Social Impact Lab, CDA

Collaborative Learning. 2016. Using beneficiary
feedback to improve development programmes:
findings from a multi-country pilot. INTRAC. https://
[Link]/2a687nzt

113
Contact

Rural Transformation and Gender Equality

Economic and Social Development
ESP-Director@[Link]
[Link]/economic/social-policies-rural-institutions/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, Italy

ISBN 978-92-5-138604-0

9 789251 386040
CC9816EN/1/05.24