evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Gewog Community Centres (CCs)

Bhutan · Thimphu · See the Bhutan profile · See the Thimphu profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 85% 48/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Bhutan built 182 of a planned 205 rural gewog Community Centres offering broadband, e-government and basic computer services, but 2014 field reporting found many centres underused or unconnected — a cautionary case on last-mile telecentre sustainability, even as a 2025 India-fund

182 of 205 centres
Community Centres established (2009-present)
130 centres
Centres connected via broadband
3-15 visits/day
Daily visits per centre (Paro Dzongkhag)
56 services
Services offered under new Integrated Service and Contact Centre programme (2025)
49 agencies
Agencies participating in Integrated Service and Contact Centre programme (2025)
Gewog Community Centres (CCs)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ministry of Information and Communications, Royal Government of Bhutan (with Asian Development Bank / SASEC)
Period
2009–present
Keywords
rural connectivity, e-government access, telecentres

Context

Bhutan's rural sub-districts (gewogs) faced limited access to community and government services; the Ministry of Information and Communications launched Community Centres in 2009 to extend connectivity built under the ADB-supported SASEC Village Network component to the local level, aiming for one centre per gewog across the country's 205 gewogs.

Objectives

Provide community-to-citizen services (photocopying, scanning, printing, computer courses) and government-to-citizen services (civil registration, forest permits, employment applications) through a nationwide network of local centres operated by the Bhutan Postal Corporation.

Activities

Centres were established across gewogs and connected to broadband where feasible, with operations run by the Postal Corporation, though authority over the centres was disputed between gewog administrations and the postal service; in 2025 the government launched a parallel, India-funded Integrated Service and Contact Centre programme offering more services from more agencies.

Results

By reporting date, 182 of the planned 205 centres had been established and 130 were connected via broadband; however, 2014 field reporting from Trashigang found many centres non-functional, under-equipped or unconnected, and Paro Dzongkhag recorded only 3 to 15 visits per centre daily, indicating low utilisation.

Conclusions

The documentation portrays a large but only partially functional rural access network, illustrating typical telecentre sustainability challenges, without a rigorous independent impact evaluation to confirm effectiveness.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — National rollout across 205 sub-districts, co-financed via ADB/SASEC fibre backbone, plus ongoing postal-corporation staffing at each centre; no published budget figure on the page.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Initiated 2009 and still operating as of the 2025 launch of a parallel service programme.
Staffing & skills
Operated by Bhutan Postal Corporation staff at each centre, Contested oversight between gewog (local) administrations and the postal service

Conditions for success

  • Reliable broadband/fibre connectivity to each centre
  • Clear governance and operational authority between local government and the postal service
  • Adequate equipment and staffing to keep centres functional

Common failure modes

  • Many centres reported non-functional, under-equipped or entirely unconnected (Trashigang, 2014)
  • Low utilisation reported (3-15 visits/day in Paro)
  • Disputed operational authority between gewog administrations and the postal service

Where it fits

Governance type
national government-led, multilateral-development-bank supported
Scale
national (205 gewogs)
Income level
lower-middle-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful