Question 2 (opens 14 Nov.)

I would certainly be very interested in reading your answers to the above question. My experience says that producer organizations, as a body, do not invest in ICT beyond the usual office hardware (w/bundled software suite used for reporting, documentation and record keeping) and bandwidth for messaging and collaboration. However, individual members do invest in hardware (mostly mobiles and laptops) and Internet services to access information and engage in communication (much of it, non-agricultural). And they share this information with fellow producers, particularly with farmer leaders and their networks.

Please prove me wrong by citing real life cases. 

You are right Sir! IN my past job we put up an information center for producers - weavers and tourism groups. Our office provided the basic ICT infrastructure, set up an office for their officers to use and also for every member of the group. A series of training/seminars to capacitate them to use ICT and operate the equipment to increase their production/incomes. At first going well especially when there was close monitoring and coaching from our technical staff. Built in mechanism were employed to slowly wean them from support and eventually make them operate indpendently. Unfortunately the infomation center died a natural death but individually the members of the producers groups invested on cell phones and to some who could afford bought their own PCs or laptops. However, this happened in the early stages of intriducing new media. Maybe at that time people have not internalized the far reaching possibilities and effects of broadening ones horizons through ICT and new media. WHich means we can always find more creative ways to influence the perception and choices of people such as thosse in producers' groups to do a paradigm shift and give ICT a chance to improve their lot!

It may seem to be the case Sir Sandy that producer organizations, as a body, do not invest in ICT beyond the usual office hardware. But there are producer organizations that considers ICT as a core function with the aim of opening up opportunities for its target audience and clients (say farmers, fishers) to access appropriate information (on policies, programs, technologies, markets) that they can use to develop available resource or mobilize resources to venture into new ventures or expand their current venture to value adding activities. A substantial amount of resources are therefore allocated for ICT development.

The problem however, based on my exprience, is how the resources allocated for ICT are utilized. Along the way, it is often the case that there are diversions made. It may not be intentional, but the cause is more on having people not being able to fully undertand the the holistic view of the purpose by which they are setting up an ICT system, or just the absence of a road map on ICT development.

I would like to be optimistic at this time that the Philippine government has required the setting up of a transparency seal by the different agencies/organizations of the government. The transparency seal should, as directed, contain information on budget and major programs, projects and how these can be accessed by clients.

The Depatment of Agriculture has now allocated a substantial budget for ICT development and ensuring these to be sustainable and functional. Through DA-Agricultural Training Institute has invested in e-learning where courses are offered to farmers and DA also has invested in seeting up the Agriculture and Fisheries Marketing Information System as a medium of market linkage between farmers and buyers.

But acceptedly, the government has yet to invest in much much more as regard ICT, if only to have the small and poor farmers be able to access and become users.

True.  DA is allocating a sizeable amount of its budget for ICT development and its making sure that the facilities are functional and sustainable.  Part of the budget is also allocated for the training of its personnel and partners. 

Aside from the Agriculture and Fisheries Marketing Information System (AFMIS) website for price monitoring and marketing information and services, DA has recently launched the Matuwid na DAAN (Department of Agriculture Accountability Network) website for transparency purposes and to respond to the call for good governance.  Agri-fishery success stories are being featured here to disseminate the best practices. 

Investments in terms of training of DA key personnel and program implementers including the LGU partners specifically on geotagging of the various programs and projects of the DA are being undertaken.  It is now being required by DA that all agri-infra projects like FMRs, flatbed dryers, irrigation projects, and other major projects should be geotagged in order to avoid ghost projects and duplication, to promote transparency and for easy progress monitoring.  This will enable key officials virtually monitor the progress of the projects 24/7 without actually going to the sites.  GIS Laboratories are now being established in each region to serve the ICT needs of the agency and the clientele/stakeholders. 

Farmers Contact Centers and the Farmers Information Technology Services (FITS) Centers were established to serve the agricultural information needs of the farmers and other agriculture stakeholders.  With FCCs, farmers may ask any agricultural information through SMS/text messaging using the cellphones.  This is in partnership with Smart, Globe, Talk & Taxt, TM and Sun.  FITS enable the farmers to use the internet for knowledge acquisition, updates and other relevant information.  E-extension classes have also been promoted in order for farmers to gain additional knowledge and enhance their competency and skills in agriculture online.   Investments made by DA on ICT development include acquisition of ICT equipment/facility and capability building. - Joyce Wendam

Hello Joyce!

Thanks for this very interesting information. You've mentioned various ICT programs and projects undertaken by the Philippine government through the Department of Agriculture. Could you provide us with a bit of time reference as when these initiatives were launched and what have been the responses from the farmers and the benefits they have gained so far?  Thanks again. - Narciso

Dr. Sandy,

There is still the reality that even though the producer organization has purchased the hardware, the wonders of ICT will follow. The first problem is usually the internet availability. It is difficult to have internet connection in villages which are located outside the major cities.

Thus, for individual members of producer organizations, the mobile phone is still the better tool to be used to promote ICT for agricultural development.

I share similar view, sir. While research and development hold undeniable importance, producer organizations and individual farmers are far too immersed into the praxis of their trade that they are prone to doing things not so formally and systematically as far as knowledge-creation and information-sharing are concerned. While there might be a few producer organizations that seriously invest in ICT and subsequently venture into research on the technology, they tend to be steered somehow by financing institutions or contracted and assisted by the government. On their own though, producer organizations are inclined to use ICT as they know best, that is, without taking the trouble anymore of studying and analysing methodically the use of the technology.

A few years ago, I visited the office of a vegetable farmers’ cooperative in Indang, Cavite (Philippines). The office had a desktop computer and a printer. What I found interesting though was that the office workers were transcribing their monitoring and evaluation reports the old-style, using pen and paper, and, in some cases, pounding the good-old typewriter. Later I was told that only one of them knew how to operate the PC, and he was not around at that time.

My take is that investment on ICT and human skills must be done hand in hand. Leilanie mentioned capacity development, and I agree with her, but argue further that, for producer organizations, this must be taken as top-most priority.

ICT is evolving very fast. On the other hand, users of communication devices, particularly those in rural areas, are not as quick in understanding the operations of the modern communication devices.

A gap exists between ICT and the ICT knowledge and skills of members of producer organizations. A farmer can easily buy a laptop. Using it to benefit his/her farming business is an altogether different proposition.

Hi! I would also prefer to prioritize access to ICT and training/capacity building. Training/capacity building on use of the hardware and complemented with software that help teach members of producer organizations on very basic and/or applied competencies on entrepreneurship, marketing,, delivery and distribution systems, B2B, and other related courses that will directly generate source of income.    

Producer organizations or probably any organization whose core business is not communications would find it difficult to invest more on ICT as it is costly even though the returns would be beneficial if properly implemented.   They would need support groups to establish ICT infrastructure such as telecommunications, computer systems, and electricity.  Unfortunately, the quality of ICT infrastructure in the Philippines is significantly lower and far more costly relative to other countries.

Producer organizations need help from government sectors for funding, media for public awareness,  telecommunication companies who may take advantage to promote their services – It has to be a collaboration of efforts from various organizations who are aware of the importance of agriculture.

Sir Sandy, I would tend to agree with you on the "hardware" investments producer organizations tend to make for the agricultural community. My point and question is even if we pursue the process much further and even if investments are made on communication infrastructures, what bothers me is the cost and sustainability of ICT means farmers use as proposed nowadays. SMS messages do cost thought phones and infrastructure services are more accessible. Computers, tablets in the way they are now connected to Internet infrastructures provide information and knowledge, but at what expense. Getting online is still expensive. Then of course, training and capacity building is certainly a must, but would this effect immediate profitability?

Sometimes I feel, good old tv, radio, and print materials are more effective in agricultural areas here in the Philippines. Just my two cents. And of course even if given the fact communication is seamless, just how well could agricultural business proceed with poor farm to market transfers (roads, transpo, etc.)?

Just my two cents.