19 Feb 2025 Grassroots communities, climate change, and the Global Digital Compact
N. Ramakrishnan
In September 2024, the United Nations General Assembly unveiled the Global Digital Compact (GDC), a sweeping framework designed to shape the digital future.1 Heralded as a cornerstone of global governance, the Compact’s ambition is nothing short of
revolutionary: to create a digital world that is inclusive, open, and secure for all. Yet, as is often the case with lofty ideals, the reality on the ground tells a more complex story.
What happens when those who are most impacted by policy decisions – the grassroots communities – are left out of the conversation?
To answer that, we need to step back and examine the GDC not just as a policy document, but as a case study in how global governance can amplify, or suppress, the voices of the unheard.
To answer that, we need to step back and examine the GDC not just as a policy document, but as a case study in how global governance can amplify, or suppress, the voices of the unheard.
The Grand Vision
The GDC is built on the promise of connectivity: “Connectivity is the lifeline of the digital era, and no one should be left behind,” its authors proclaim. For the billions who remain on the margins of the digital revolution – disconnected, disenfranchised, and often disregarded – this message is a lifeline.
But is it, really? Promises of inclusion often mask deeper questions. Who gets to define what
inclusion looks like? Who decides whose voices matter? Critics like Tim Unwin, an academic and digital policy expert, argue that the GDC’s approach to inclusion is top-down, with little room for the grassroots communities whose lives it purports to transform. Writing on his blog, Unwin highlights the irony: “The Global Digital Compact is the latest example of a global initiative that promises inclusivity but struggles to deliver it.”2
The Missing Voices
Imagine a village in a remote part of the world where internet access is a distant dream. Here, people navigate the challenges of climate change, education, and livelihoods with ingenuity born of necessity. They have stories to tell, ideas to share, and solutions that could inspire the world. Yet these voices rarely make it to the global stage.
Grassroots communities bring invaluable perspectives to global challenges, especially in addressing climate change and fostering digital inclusion. But systemic barriers – limited access to technology, language gaps, and digital illiteracy – make it nearly impossible for them to articulate their views. Worse, the GDC’s focus on technological fixes often sidelines the human dimensions of these challenges.3
Climate Action and Community Empowerment
The GDC’s performance in strengthening community actions to address climate change reveals both potential and pitfalls. On the one hand, the Compact emphasizes digital infrastructure as a catalyst for sustainable development. On the other hand, it does not sufficiently address how digital tools can be leveraged to empower communities in their environmental stewardship.4
Take, for example, the role of grassroots organizations in India’s watershed management projects. Local communities have used simple digital mapping tools to identify water stress zones and collaboratively design rainwater harvesting systems. These efforts not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also restore degraded ecosystems.5 Yet, such projects often operate without the systemic support the GDC could provide, such as funding mechanisms or open-access platforms for knowledge-sharing.
The Allure and Danger of Techno-solutionism
Techno-solutionism is a term that has gained currency in recent years. It describes the belief that technology alone can solve complex social problems. The GDC’s emphasis on connectivity and digital infrastructure embodies this mindset. For policymakers and tech giants, it’s an appealing narrative: Build the networks, and the rest will follow.6
But as advocacy groups like Global Partners Digital caution, this approach can do more harm than good. “Technological solutions without human-centred policies can exacerbate existing inequalities rather than alleviate them,” their joint statement warns.7 In other words, technology is only as effective as the context in which it is deployed. For grassroots communities, whose needs and realities often defy one-size-fits-all solutions, the risks are especially high.
Platforms: The Paradox of Empowerment
Digital platforms hold immense promise for amplifying grassroots voices. A farmer in sub-Saharan Africa can share innovations with peers across the globe. An activist in a small town can mobilize support for a cause that transcends borders. Yet, these same platforms are fraught with challenges.
A report by Article 19, a global human rights organization, highlights a troubling paradox: “Offline rights must be protected online.”8 While platforms like Facebook and Twitter democratize access to information, they also serve as battlegrounds for misinformation, censorship, and algorithmic biases that can stifle marginalized voices.
Take, for instance, the issue of algorithmic bias. Studies show that social media algorithms often amplify content that aligns with mainstream narratives, sidelining dissenting or minority perspectives. For grassroots communities, this means their stories may never reach the audiences they need to influence.9
Communication Rights and Climate Justice
Communication rights are intrinsically tied to climate justice. The ability to share knowledge, express opinions, and participate in decision-making processes is critical for communities facing environmental crises. The GDC has a unique opportunity to enshrine these rights within its framework, yet it stops short of explicitly linking digital inclusion with climate justice.10
Consider the case of Indigenous communities in the Amazon rainforest, who use GPS and drones to monitor deforestation and illegal logging. These tools, coupled with social media platforms, have enabled them to share their findings with the world and demand accountability from governments and corporations. By safeguarding their communication rights, the GDC could strengthen such initiatives and ensure that local knowledge informs global climate strategies.11
Implementation: A Work in Progress
If the GDC’s principles are to translate into meaningful change, its implementation must be deliberate and inclusive. This is where the Compact faces its greatest challenge. Critics argue that while the GDC excels in articulating aspirations, it falls short in providing a roadmap for action.12
Consider the issue of internet access. Connectivity alone is not enough; it must be affordable, accompanied by localized content, and supported by training programs that empower users. Without these elements, the digital divide may not just persist – it could deepen.13 Tim Unwin puts it bluntly: “If the GDC is to succeed, it must move beyond rhetoric and invest in meaningful engagement with those it claims to represent.”14
Lessons from the Margins
What can the GDC learn from the grassroots? First and foremost, that inclusion is not a box to tick; it’s a process. Real inclusion means meeting communities where they are – not just physically, but culturally and socially. It means listening to their stories, understanding their challenges, and co-creating solutions that reflect their realities.
Policymakers must also recognize that grassroots communities are not passive beneficiaries; they are active agents of change. Their insights and innovations have the power to reshape global governance, but only if they are given the tools and platforms to do so.15
A Call to Action
So, what needs to change? The answer lies in a series of actionable steps:
1. Create Spaces for Participation: Grassroots communities need a seat at the table. This requires breaking down barriers like language, access, and representation. For example, in Kenya’s Kitui County, local women’s groups collaborated with NGOs to design water harvesting projects, leveraging digital platforms to share their successes and influence policy discussions.16
2. Prioritize Human Rights: The GDC must safeguard freedoms of expression and combat digital harms such as misinformation and censorship. Consider India’s Digital Empowerment Foundation, which trains rural women to become internet saathis (digital companions). These women have not only gained a voice online but also helped counter local misinformation campaigns through trusted networks.17
3. Focus on Localization: Policies should be tailored to the unique needs of communities, moving away from one-size-fits-all solutions. In Bangladesh, the Digital Krishi (Digital Agriculture) project offers farmers region-specific weather updates and advice via SMS, demonstrating how localized content can address grassroots needs effectively.18
4. Demand Accountability: Platforms must be held accountable for their impact on marginalized voices. Transparency is key to building trust. In Brazil, grassroots activists used digital tools to monitor and report illegal logging in the Amazon, pressuring social media companies to act against fake accounts spreading misinformation about deforestation.19
5. Measure Impact: The GDC’s success must be measured by tangible outcomes, not just rhetoric. This requires robust monitoring and a willingness to adapt. Take the example of EcoClubs in Argentina, where young people track local climate indicators using simple digital tools and report their findings to municipal authorities. The program has not only improved environmental monitoring but also arguably increased youth engagement in policymaking.20
The Road Ahead
The Global Digital Compact is an ambitious project with the potential to redefine digital governance. But ambition alone is not enough; and like many international agreements that have preceded it, it flatters to deceive. For the GDC to fulfil its promise, it must confront the uncomfortable truths about whose voices are heard and whose are silenced – both in the process of the construction and conception of the GDC itself, and in the vision for our common digital future it lays out.
In the end, the question is not just about bridging the digital divide; it’s about ensuring that the bridge leads somewhere meaningful. Grassroots communities hold the keys to this future. The world must listen – not out of charity, but because their wisdom is indispensable. Only then can we build a digital world that truly belongs to everyone.
Notes
1. United Nations General Assembly, Global Digital Compact: An Overview, 2024. Available at UN Digital Library.
2. Unwin, Tim. Reflections on the Global Digital Compact. Blog Post, 2024. Available at https://timunwin.blog/2023/04/20/reflections-on-the-global-digital-compact.
3. Global Partners Digital, Digital Inclusion: A Critical Perspective, Policy Brief, 2024. Available at globalpartnersdigital.org.
4. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Harnessing Digital Tools for Sustainable Development, Report, 2023. Available at undp.org
5. “Sujala Watershed Project: Leveraging Digital Tools for Groundwater Management”, World Bank, 2017. Available at worldbank.org.
6. “To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism”, Morozov, Evgeny. PublicAffairs, 2013.
7. Joint statement by Global Partners Digital and allied organizations, Beyond Connectivity: Centering Communities in the Digital Era, 2024. Available at globalpartnersdigital.org
8. Article 19, Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age, Annual Report, 2023. Available at article19.org.
9. “Algorithmic Bias in Social Media Platforms,” Journal of Communication Technology, 2023.
10. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Climate Justice and Communication Rights: Intersections, 2023. Available at unep.org.
11. “Eyes in the Sky: How Indigenous Communities Use Drones to Protect the Amazon,” Greenpeace, 2020. Available at greenpeace.org.
12. Unwin, Tim. Moving from Rhetoric to Action: Critiquing the GDC. Blog Post, 2024. Available at unwin.org.
13. World Economic Forum, Closing the Digital Divide: Affordability and Accessibility, 2023. Available at weforum.org.
14. Unwin, Tim. Reflections on the Global Digital Compact. Blog Post, 2024. Available at unwin.org.
15. Smith, Jane. “Engaging Communities in Digital Governance: Lessons from Participatory Development,” Journal of Grassroots Innovation, 2023.
16. “Women and Water in Kitui County: Digital Solutions for Community Development,” ActionAid Report, 2022. Available at actionaid.org.
17. “Empowering Rural Women Through Digital Literacy: The Internet Saathi Program,” Tata Trusts and Google, 2021. Available at tatatrusts.org.
18. “Bridging Gaps in Agriculture Through Digital Services,” Government of Bangladesh, Ministry of Agriculture, 2022. Available at moa.gov.bd.
19. “Amazon Watch: Community-Led Monitoring and Advocacy,” Amazon Watch Report, 2023. Available at amazonwatch.org.
20. “Youth Empowerment and Climate Action in Argentina: A Case Study of EcoClubs,” UNDP Report, 2022. Available at undp.org.
N. Ramakrishnan is a filmmaker/cinematographer, radio producer; and communication rights activist; and the Founder/Director of Ideosync Media Combine, an internationally renowned SBCC organization based in the NCR of Delhi, India. He is also a social and behaviour change communication specialist and has consulted extensively on a variety of interventions using media for community empowerment. Ramakrishnan has trained more than a hundred CR stations across India, South and Southeast Asia in low-cost radio technology, production and sustainability. Over the last 20 years, he has taught radio, TV and film production to mass communication students at Delhi University and the School of Convergence; and is currently an Associate Professor of Practice at the Jindal School of Journalism & Communication at OP Jindal Global University, where he also runs the Center for Media Development & Communiation Research (CMDCR). He has several research papers, articles and books to his credit, including CR: A User’s Guide to the Technology (UNESCO, 2008); and CR & Migration (with Venu Arora, UNESCO, 2016)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.