No let up in EASSy controversy

Controversy surrounding the East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) attests to the hurdles that the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad) has to grapple with in its efforts to implement multinational infrastructure projects. Notably, Kenya’s decision to pull out of the cable project adds more fuel to the fire that has been razing the project since its conception four years ago. While noting that Kenya’s decision to abandon the project was regrettable, Dr Henry Chasia, Executive Deputy chairperson at the Nepad e-Africa Commission said the EASSy project would go on as scheduled.

“It would be regrettable if Kenya opted to go it alone and built its own under-sea fibre optic cable as this would weaken the EASSy initiative”, Dr Chasia said.

Dr Chasia, a Kenyan, wondered why Kenya never raised any complaints in the initial stages, yet it sent a very competent delegation at all stages of negotiation of the protocol for the creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)—a legal entity to own and manage EASSy. Indeed, according to information obtained from the Nepad eAfrica Commission website, Kenya was a signatory to the June 6 Johannesburg Declaration on the Policy and Regulatory Framework for Nepad ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network for eastern and southern Africa.

But all is not lost as Kenya is still free to bring its concerns to the negotiating table. Chasia says it is right that Kenya expresses its concerns and that the other countries that are party to the protocol understand and address these concerns in the context of their own interests and concerns. “This is normal; given time and good will, an agreement will be reached that satisfies everyone”, said Chasia adding: “A treaty is never signed by all parties at once”, he said, citing the case of the African Union (AU) and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).

Kenya was among the 16 countries that failed to sign the EASSy SPV protocol and early September, its cabinet gave a nod to the establishment of its own under-sea fibre optic cable—The East African Marine Systems (Teams)--connecting between its coastal city of Mombasa and Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman. The $110m project—a joint venture between the government and the private sector-- is expected to connect East and Horn of African countries to the rest of the world. Chasia, however, said Kenya is free to build as many underground cables as possible. “In fact, this will bring about competition and push prices further down”, he stated.

But Kenya’s landlocked neighbours, some of which have signed the protocol, have a reason to worry, as they will have to cough out more money to get connected to the international network. It is against this background that Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni has, according to sources close to EASSy, hinted that although Uganda has signed the protocol, he would go for the Kenyan cable if it turns out to be cheaper.

What cannot be gainsaid, however, is the fact that failure by some countries to sign the protocol will cause further delays to a project that is already running behind schedule. It is noteworthy that of the 23 countries involved in the project, only seven--Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, South Africa, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania signed the protocol at the August 29 ceremony in Kigali. Another seven countries-- Botswana, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mauritius, Somalia, Zambia and Zimbabwe are expected to sign the protocol today at a ceremony in Cape Town. Kenya maintains that it will not attend today’s signing ceremony unless contentious issues are addressed.

Meanwhile, the project continues to run behind schedule, with a possibility of stalling. Chasia attributes the project’s delay to its complexity. “Although in terms of the needs of the economies of the region, this cable is long overdue, efforts are being exerted to achieve commissioning in 2008. For a joint project of this magnitude and complexity, it takes a long time to achieve agreement among the stakeholders, assemble the funds and put project teams together. This is the trajectory on which the project is embarked and this is what is taking time to accomplish”, he observed.
.
Delays in the implementation of the project have been occasioned by disputes over ownership and access.

For one, the protocol commits the signatories to modify their regulatory framework to accommodate the provisions. According to Kenya, this is illegal as the protocol is bound to override national laws and overrule all regulatory agreements in Eastern and Southern Africa. This is a view shared with other countries that have not signed the protocol. As regards ownership, Kenya`s Information and Communication permanent secretary Dr Bitange Ndemo says the Kenyan government roots for private ownership, governed by a shareholders` agreement. Kenya is not happy with the fact that Nepad is taking over ownership, shutting out the EASSy parties (telecom companies) that had already contracted the French company, Alcatel, to construct the cable.

But there are still more bones of contention. Whereas EASSy was founded on the principles of open and non-discriminatory access, some of the consortium operators want the use of the cable limited to members only, with participation limited to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with international gateway licences. Though this difference appeared to have been resolved at a June meeting of ICT ministers from Eastern and Southern Africa, the matter, in actual fact, was never put to rest.

Part of the problem has been the perception that South Africa has been dominating the EASSy project through Nepad, a suggestion that officials deny. “South Africa is just a member of Nepad like the rest of the countries and it would be wrong to say that it is dominating the project”, observed Chasia. Echoing similar sentiments, Ms DG Lyndal Shope-Mafole, director general, South Africa’s Department of Communications, and chairperson of the presidential National Commission on the Information Society and Development, noted that the Nepad work is guided by partnership and the question of South Africa dominating the project does not arise.

But analysts think otherwise. Writing in the February 2006 issue of Openspace, a digest of the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) and the University of Botswana, Console Tleane—head of the media and ICT programme at South Africa’s Freedom of Expression Institute—observed thus: “For some, the relationship that South Africa has with other SADC member states, and the continent as a whole, is that of self-imposing sub-imperial power which will stop at nothing to exert its influence and extract as many benefits from every relationship that it develops”.

Besides delays in implementation, the simmering tensions, especially between Kenya and South Africa cannot be wished away. While Kenya is for universal and cheap access, Telkom South Africa keeps threatening to pull out if the return on investment was not sufficient. But there is no gainsaying that Kenya’s decision to abandon the cable was a culmination of pent-up anger and frustration. Having liberalized its ICT sector in the last two years, leading to a fall in Internet and telephone charges, the government found it unacceptable to go back to the era of controls and monopolistic tendencies as suggested by some consortium members. And by early May, it was evident that Kenya’s patience was running out.

Speaking at a breakfast meeting with stakeholders on setting up a multimedia technology park in Kenya, Information and Communication minister Mutahi Kagwe offered: “We are also considering other options which could give us additional international connectivity. We no longer have the patience to wait for long for the EASSy project to reach Mombasa. As business entrepreneurs, you are aware that time is probably the most expensive commodity in the ICT sector today and it is in short supply”. But as it were, Kenya has not completely abandoned the EASSy project. At a recent ICT conference in Nairobi, Kagwe said Kenya was still keen on the EASSy project even as it went ahead with its parallel cable.

The controversy-riddled 9900km EASSy network to be built on Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing Technology (DWDM) is an initiative to connect countries of eastern and southern Africa via a high bandwidth fibre optic cable system to the rest of the world. Considered a milestone in the development of information infrastructure in the region, it is expected to reduce unit costs for global connectivity, leading to increased profitability and lower tariffs and charges for end users.

Above all, it is expected to facilitate inter-Africa trade owing to better communication in the region.EASSy is planned to run from Mtunzini in South Africa to Port Sudan in Sudan with landing points in six countries, and connected to at least five landlocked countries – which will no longer have to rely on expensive satellite systems to carry voice and data services. One of the six ICT projects presented by the Nepad eAfrica Commission to the 6th meeting of the Nepad Heads of State Implementation Committee in March 2003 in Abuja, it has been dogged by controversy, a fact that threatens its very survival.

By its very nature, EASSy’s is a debate that could not escape the attention of the increasingly vocal blogosphere. “I have been closely monitoring the on goings on the EASSy project and I dare say that Kenya has valid concerns. The level of investment involved is well worth it”, wrote a blogger on the kenyanpundit.com.

Another blogger, simply known as Black River Eagle on the same blog commented thus: “Obviously, putting a single company or entity in charge of the EASSy project would be a big mistake, as is already apparent with SAT-3 (SA Telekom)”. “South Africa has been such a spanner in the eassy works that I have to wonder if Kenya would want SA to leech off the bandwidth they're working so hard to get”, reads a blog post on mybroadband.co.za. And a blog post by Abubaker Basajjabaka at bellanet.org goes: “But in the wake of its establishment, a consortium of stakeholders especially telecom organizations say they have already secured $200m for the project and therefore do not need anything from the World Bank, which is also interested in offering its financial support”.

As the EASSy controversy continues to rage, ICT experts argue that if the Internet access costs are to be brought down, African governments will have to invest heavily in infrastructure. “The cost of routing traffic internationally costs the continent $400m annually, representing a major capital flight out of Africa”, noted Eric Osiakwan, Executive Secretary, African ISP Association. Osiakwan opined that floating of EASSy stocks through government guaranteed Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) would allow ordinary citizens to own a slice of EASSy, thereby enhancing cheaper access.

Construction of the EASSy cable funded by the Worl Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Development Bank of Southern Africa starts this month and is expected to be complete by early 2008. EASSy has a projected lifespan of 25 years.

But whether it will stand the test of time remains to be seen.