Based on concrete experience or evidence, how can ICT tools and communication services engage family farmers in accessing information and exchanging knowledge?
Alberto ... Hallelujah ! More than changing the behavior of rural / smallholder farmers, we need to change our own behavior and set realistic expectations on any ICT tool, especially when many of them have been designed with a limited commercial approach.
But as many projects / tools continue to focus on production, we ignore "access to market." As farmers quality and yields increase, many continue to struggle to generate significantly more income because no one bothered to engage the commercial marekt. Even if farmers want to attract new buyers, they don't yet have these skills or just the simple financial or technical capacity to move their crops to wholesale buyers.
I am especially frustrated with schemes planning to export their products but havden't taken into account the need for food safety certifications like Global GAP, required by the EU. But even crash crops like coffee, tea and cotton require safe production and many buyers now require better traceability. So more than just pushing contnet, we need to be able to pull data from farmers. Along these lines, both Grameen and ESOKO have done some interesting work but am still unsure of both the potential for their financial self-sustainabilty and growth.
You raise some important points here, first you remark the need of more holistic approaches ICTs are but a minor component on development projects and need to be part of a more integral intervention. If ICT projects just focus on knowledge exchange welll... these will be dead by the time the donor funds extinguish. The commercial approach is as important as the user centric design of the tool.
We are working a lot in coffee and have a well funcitoning platform that connects extension services with certification, GAP and now working with Starbucks to integrate loans. We have mapped 4 seals (CAFE Practices, FLO, Rainforest and almost done with organic) to a single data collection tool and we can map how close or far a farmer is in complying with these standards. We have done this (or trying to) by focusing on the Ag principle and if we take care of the the key 4-5 practices of soil conservation, then we can comply with any standard that related to it.
This multicertification empowers the coop and helps guide the extension services efforts, we know for each farmers which practices are low and we can focalize the efforts. Happy to share more.
About sustainability,agreed, you might be familiar with our CKW work in Uganda, this is a great project that was the base of our work in LAC, but the model we have design here maitains the basis but mutated a lot. I cant say we will be for sure 100% sustainable, but we believe is a short term goal. The model is much lighter weight and while still on early stage is promising. Again, is not just information exchange (nobody pays for info) is info that generates transactions and business.
Thanks for the contributions! We found some points very interesting.
Nafia mentioned a point TECA is especially attentive about. We try to make sure that the practices and technologies uploaded on TECA are in an easy non-academic language and are illustrative through images and videos.
It is also important that the information should come from trusted sources. For this reason institutions and not individuals are allowed to upload materials on TECA.The focus on businesses transactions and access to market for smallholder farmers is also very important. On TECA we cover this topic in the category “post-harvest and marketing”, but is definitely a topic which needs more focus. Probably there are better ICT tools than a knowledge base to assist people in these issues.
From a global perspective it is difficult to address the needs of single local communities. Actors on the ground are essential in assisting them: they are more trusted as they know the local settings and communities. There are different steps and actors passing on information. We think as a globally operating actor it is important to collaborate with institutions working on the ground, who have the capacity of involving communities. ICTs have to be easily accessible, adaptable and transferable to meet different local needs and institutional settings.
This initiative by a young Senegalese ICT passionate targets the farmers in Senegal and West Africa. The relevance of M-Louma was acknowledged in 2013 on several occasions e.g.
Enna LutenganoAssociation of Managing Knowledge in Agriculture (AMKA)Tanzania
Radio and phones are major tools which are highly used in rural areas by family farmers. Using these tools to access information and exchanging knowledge is an efficiency and effective way to family farmers. This has been proven positively from one of the project we had recently in few regions. Journalists, farmers, broadcasters, agricultural extension ofificers and other agricultural stakeholders were brought together and work so closely. Farmers meet once a month and discuss the issues they face. Then issues are presented to agricultural extension workers who works with journalists/broadcasters to prepare the series of radio programs for farmers in relation to the issues raised. The radio program aired to the radio and incase there is any query, there was a system that allow farmers to communicate feedback with the broadcaters through phone.
Moreover, there was a mobile application through which farmers were able to access different information by choosing any topic they want to learn more.
This approach is very useful as it helps to communicate with large number of the farmers especially in rural area within a short time. It also helps to address the problem of shortage of agricultural extension workers which is the case in Tanzania.
ICT is a relatively new instrument in the struggle for the elimination of
hunger and poverty. The World Bank, in its Strategy Paper TIC2 year
2002 states that 'information technology and communication are an item
key to growth and economic development. They provide opportunities for
global integration while retaining the identity of traditional societies. ICT
may increase the economic and social welfare of the poor and empower individuals and
communities. Finally, ICT can improve the effectiveness, efficiency and
transparency of the public sector, including the provision of social services. '
One lesson that usually emanates from the initiatives that use ICT for development
is that success is possible but that this program should be designed and
implemented carefully. Premature enthusiasm and conviction that
ICT prove to be the panacea to development problems has
led to a number of failed attempts to have a bad reputation in ICT
major development circles. 'After years of debates in the field of development
about rusty tractors or failed projects and infrastructure after years of
accumulated in participatory communication, it seems that experience are repeating
same errors and weaknesses in the race to make the benefits of new
information technology and communication available to all. abound
stories about government-sponsored telecenters or NGO that
are empty, with its abandoned or stolen or being used only for equipment
those who have money to pay. There are even theories developed participatory
decades ago, issues arising from a similar scenario, albeit with different
tecnologías'3
It is a pleasure to join this discussion. I would like to share some field experiences about to how to facilitate access to knowledge and information to farmers through Communication for development (ComDev). I think the issue is that there is a need for planned and systematic use of communication activities/processes rather than just media and ICTs. There is also a need for reliable rural communication services integrating several media (ICTs, community media, etc) to serve multiple purposes, as well as for mechanisms to allow farmers’ participation in the definition of these services.
I would like to refer to an example from the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS). AIS includes a multitude of actors, such as producer organizations, research institutes, extension and advisory services, universities, governments, individual farmers, producer organizations and private sector groups (traders, processors, supermarkets, etc.) involved in a variety of processes related to improving agriculture. Communication plays a key role in linking up those actors and in improving the processes and services related to agricultural innovation. In particular extension and research institutions, as well as farmers organizations may benefit a great deal by including systematically ComDev strategies and plans based on needs assessment of information and communication needs of different rural audiences along the value chain.
The application of ComDev in AIS can be well exemplified by the work of the Communication for Sustainable Development Initiative (CSDI) in Bolivia. The project was launched in 2008 by FAO to develop, test and implement ComDev strategies and tools for sound environmental practices and sustainable rural development.
In collaboration with the National Institute for Innovation in Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry (INIAF) a national ComDev plan was implemented to enhance participation, dialogue and knowledge sharing among different AIS stakeholders. The project carried out participatory communication appraisals (PRCA) in order to identify needs of rural communities and local institutions in four pilot areas tackling topics prioritized by INIAF and other agricultural organizations. Furthermore, in each pilot area communication a series of Espacios Locales de concertación (Local negotiation space) were facilitated – involving farmer organizations and cooperatives, small-scale producers, local governments, NGOs and media - as platforms for dialogue and informed decision making.
Based on the results of local consultations, each community came up with a Local Innovation and Communication Plan (PLIC) identifying activities to support agricultural innovation and to at building local communication capacities. In particular, a set of communication tools and materials were developed and consolidated into knowledge and communication modules (KCM), following the principles of the Audiovisual Pedagogy:
recovery of farmers’ traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge;
direct reference to the producers’ reality and use of local language;
practical learning designed for smallholders and rural families;
active participation of producers in the collective learning process;
training sessions carried out where producers live, not interfering in productive activities;
use of audiovisual media to overcome literacy barriers for transmission of knowledge;
choice of appropriate technical information according to the different groups.
Each KCM consists of a set of information and communication tools including videos, audio tracks and printed materials such as booklets, guides, flipcharts, brochures and posters.
As a tangible result of this experience a series of PLICs based on the use of KCM were implemented in each pilot area to share local and technical knowledge and facilitate participatory learning:
Pasture management for dairy cattle
Direct sowing for sustainable production
Water harvesting for diversified crops
Forage conservation: sorghum silage
.An evaluation case study conducted in the project area highlighted how the ComDev methods used were appropriate to the characteristics of the target population. The training approach was primarily based on learning-by-doing, knowledge dialogue and exchange of experiences, conducted in a highly participatory, dynamic and interactive manner. The set of multimedia materials developed, especially video, proved effective in showing the concrete possibility for change and innovation in local settings. The end-users were considerably satisfied with the capacity development offered at community level. Video was considered the most relevant and useful tool to show similar farming experiences and demonstrate how the production increase experienced by other producers who adopted a new practice. The facilitators were satisfied with the process of mutual learning and consolidated their capacity to use ComDev methods as a tool for their work. The study detected new knowledge and work practices in the community, as a result of the training and practical activities that sparked the interest of the participants and motivated them to adopt the innovation.
This experience showcase the need for a shift from the use of ICTs for technology transfer based, to a broader understanding of how to involve multiple stakeholders in an innovation process through ComDev. A way to approach agricultural innovation and to promote social change based on a participatory communication approach rather than technologies.
My last contribution drew attention to issues of exclusion of family farmers in the use of ICTs.
There are very few documented narrations of the thousands of ICT initiatives across the developing world in agriculture that have not yielded their stated potential and have been unsuccessful. Because of this, we cannot learn more about why these initiatives failed.
The abuse of ICTs that have seriously affected smallholder farmers has also not been recorded in significant numbers. That does not mean there is no abuse. There is. Let me give to an example. In India, in the State of Karnataka, some very progressive Government administrators initiated a project to use GIS for electronic documentation of land ownership of farmers. Once the maps were drawn and publicly available, in addition to helping farmers, it also helped land sharks to grab land that did not have clear ownership or were owned by the Government. This was easy to do since the information was easily available. The result was farmers who owned ancestral lands but without clear legal documents were jeopardized in losing their land to these land grabbers. Also public lands which were used as communal pastures or as village lakes and ponds were relatively easy to grab as the Government could not easily maintain a watch of all of the land in its ownership and which could easily be disputed as water levels that demarcate these lands can vary and can be made to change to benefit those without scruples especially those that had political power. Resource poor smallholder farmers who grazed their animals on these lands lost out to the land grabbers who could manipulate the now easily available electronically kept land records.
In the UK, after the incidences of “mad cow disease” (BSE), private small-scale butcheries and small abattoirs were drastically affected by rules that enforced traceability (largely through electronic means) of the meat. This has made farmers producing meat dependent on large abattoirs that are usually owned by large food processing companies and supermarkets for selling their animals. This effectively removed the smallholder family farmers selling their own meat in local markets. A more unrecorded phenomenon was that farmers who traditionally produced local foods such as meat pies and sausages and retained a cultural heritage could not do so using the meat they had produced on their own farms. Thus the farmers not only lost economically and became dependent on large corporates but also the local heritage and culture was severely affected. As a consequence tourism and other similar vocations that contributed significantly as additional income for farmers were affected by the need for traceability that used ICT to manage records. It is not very difficult to reason why rural areas in UK and Europe are losing out farmers at a very rapid rate affecting rural economies, the environment and cultural heritage.
As experts in ICT use in agriculture, we must concern ourselves in exploring how information flows which are in consonance with commodities and associated financial flows in farming and production systems and the Agri-food chains and which cannot be disaggregated from each other, contribute and affect smallholder family farmers? We must analyze and document all phenomenon in ICTs use at a systems level. We must consider what happens when a farmer uses m-Pesa or Bitcoin which are not backed by conventional banking systems and have no reliable government assurance which is one of the key functions of the banks.
We must also explore how ICTs can help develop farming systems that can stop adverse phenomenon for farmers to happen. We need farming for many reasons other than food production. We must also consider whether the uses of ICTs are contributing to exclusion or inclusion in the farming systems that we now contribute to develop and innovate. Would the world like to have rural slums as we have urban slums of excluded individuals serving from the margins of societies rural industrial complexes that produce food and other agricultural products? And, all this because indiscriminate use of ICTs contributed to this happening.
Let me come back to this point in order to share key points shared by CTA youth group on “The use of ICTs to strengthen link between youth and family farming”. (currently discussed)
- ICTs help promote youth involvement in agriculture by enhancing their opportunities, motivations and capacities.
- ICTs also contribute to improving youth livelihoods, agricultural modernisation and creating benefits throughout value chains.
They discussed:
a. how can we make better use of ICTs to address these issues the specific challenges faced by youth in family farming?b. Do we have examples of projects/initiatives in this area?
They highlighted that there are different types of young people:
Youths fully and naturally passionate about agriculture (lower percentage)
Youth with current high unemployment rates trying to tap into agriculture for income generation.
youths with stable backgrounds ( i.e. parents/ guardians have resources such as capital, infrastructure, large social and connections)
Rural Youths with, no access to capital, resources, knowledge. (Constitute majority)
Main challenges are:
I view it as different classes of youth it will require different ICT initiatives. Some rural areas in Africa, are really undeveloped, without mobiles networks, no electricity.
Accessing relevant information or content to upscale their family farming.
Market information, access and finance.
Tackling the negative image of agriculture by giving a positive image agriculture through success stories of young people in agriculture
Example of successful initiatives:
Savannah Young Farmers Network (SavaNet)
Their success is based on: 1.A youth participatory approach from A to Z in the development of ICT applications aimed at addressing the challenges youth face in family farming. 2.Innovative approach to suit the needs of young family farmers with less or no formal education. 3. The set up of ICT4Ag centers in rural communities: a one stop centre to practically harness diverse ICT applications while promoting their active engagement in Agriculture for increased Agricultural productivity.
Check their Audio Conferencing for Agricultural Extension (ACE) project - as published in the ICT update magazine, p.7: http://publications.cta.int/en/publications/publication/ICT065E/
Mkulima Young -
1. over 35,000 likes on Facebook and very interactive space.
2. Over 5,000 follower on twitter
3. A very interactive website with over 2,000 hits daily and last month was top ten most searched website according to google in Kenya.
Moma's Farm Project, an initiative aimed at enhancing food security through promoting draught animal traction and saving labour among women farmers in Nigeria. The project is using ICTs to achieve its objectives through Reality TV shows and audio-visual documentation of its activities.The Project is fully present on the internet with Website: www.momasfarm.com, or tweeter @momasfarm, Facebook page: Moma's Farm Project. It is also available on Google+ and Youtube.
An initiative of Farm Radio International in Mali. The initiative is about an innovative reality radio series in Mali called Daba Kamalen, in Bambara, and FarmQuest, in English. The show was designed to encourage youth to consider farming as a profitable business, and not just a means of subsistence, by following six young candidates competing to be named “best new farmer.” (Learn more here: http://www.farmradio.org/ourblog/2014/01/21/can-a-reality-show-really-deliver-aid-to-africa-yes/)
Alberto ... Hallelujah ! More than changing the behavior of rural / smallholder farmers, we need to change our own behavior and set realistic expectations on any ICT tool, especially when many of them have been designed with a limited commercial approach.
But as many projects / tools continue to focus on production, we ignore "access to market." As farmers quality and yields increase, many continue to struggle to generate significantly more income because no one bothered to engage the commercial marekt. Even if farmers want to attract new buyers, they don't yet have these skills or just the simple financial or technical capacity to move their crops to wholesale buyers.
I am especially frustrated with schemes planning to export their products but havden't taken into account the need for food safety certifications like Global GAP, required by the EU. But even crash crops like coffee, tea and cotton require safe production and many buyers now require better traceability. So more than just pushing contnet, we need to be able to pull data from farmers. Along these lines, both Grameen and ESOKO have done some interesting work but am still unsure of both the potential for their financial self-sustainabilty and growth.
Rachel,
You raise some important points here, first you remark the need of more holistic approaches ICTs are but a minor component on development projects and need to be part of a more integral intervention. If ICT projects just focus on knowledge exchange welll... these will be dead by the time the donor funds extinguish. The commercial approach is as important as the user centric design of the tool.
We are working a lot in coffee and have a well funcitoning platform that connects extension services with certification, GAP and now working with Starbucks to integrate loans. We have mapped 4 seals (CAFE Practices, FLO, Rainforest and almost done with organic) to a single data collection tool and we can map how close or far a farmer is in complying with these standards. We have done this (or trying to) by focusing on the Ag principle and if we take care of the the key 4-5 practices of soil conservation, then we can comply with any standard that related to it.
This multicertification empowers the coop and helps guide the extension services efforts, we know for each farmers which practices are low and we can focalize the efforts. Happy to share more.
About sustainability,agreed, you might be familiar with our CKW work in Uganda, this is a great project that was the base of our work in LAC, but the model we have design here maitains the basis but mutated a lot. I cant say we will be for sure 100% sustainable, but we believe is a short term goal. The model is much lighter weight and while still on early stage is promising. Again, is not just information exchange (nobody pays for info) is info that generates transactions and business.
Dear all,
Thanks for the contributions! We found some points very interesting.
Nafia mentioned a point TECA is especially attentive about. We try to make sure that the practices and technologies uploaded on TECA are in an easy non-academic language and are illustrative through images and videos.
It is also important that the information should come from trusted sources. For this reason institutions and not individuals are allowed to upload materials on TECA.The focus on businesses transactions and access to market for smallholder farmers is also very important. On TECA we cover this topic in the category “post-harvest and marketing”, but is definitely a topic which needs more focus. Probably there are better ICT tools than a knowledge base to assist people in these issues.
From a global perspective it is difficult to address the needs of single local communities. Actors on the ground are essential in assisting them: they are more trusted as they know the local settings and communities. There are different steps and actors passing on information. We think as a globally operating actor it is important to collaborate with institutions working on the ground, who have the capacity of involving communities. ICTs have to be easily accessible, adaptable and transferable to meet different local needs and institutional settings.
http://www.mlouma.com
This initiative by a young Senegalese ICT passionate targets the farmers in Senegal and West Africa. The relevance of M-Louma was acknowledged in 2013 on several occasions e.g.
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy-1/development-ass...
http://www.infodev.org/mobilestartupcamp
Radio and phones are major tools which are highly used in rural areas by family farmers. Using these tools to access information and exchanging knowledge is an efficiency and effective way to family farmers. This has been proven positively from one of the project we had recently in few regions. Journalists, farmers, broadcasters, agricultural extension ofificers and other agricultural stakeholders were brought together and work so closely. Farmers meet once a month and discuss the issues they face. Then issues are presented to agricultural extension workers who works with journalists/broadcasters to prepare the series of radio programs for farmers in relation to the issues raised. The radio program aired to the radio and incase there is any query, there was a system that allow farmers to communicate feedback with the broadcaters through phone.
Moreover, there was a mobile application through which farmers were able to access different information by choosing any topic they want to learn more.
This approach is very useful as it helps to communicate with large number of the farmers especially in rural area within a short time. It also helps to address the problem of shortage of agricultural extension workers which is the case in Tanzania.
Hello everyone
ICT is a relatively new instrument in the struggle for the elimination of
hunger and poverty. The World Bank, in its Strategy Paper TIC2 year
2002 states that 'information technology and communication are an item
key to growth and economic development. They provide opportunities for
global integration while retaining the identity of traditional societies. ICT
may increase the economic and social welfare of the poor and empower individuals and
communities. Finally, ICT can improve the effectiveness, efficiency and
transparency of the public sector, including the provision of social services. '
One lesson that usually emanates from the initiatives that use ICT for development
is that success is possible but that this program should be designed and
implemented carefully. Premature enthusiasm and conviction that
ICT prove to be the panacea to development problems has
led to a number of failed attempts to have a bad reputation in ICT
major development circles. 'After years of debates in the field of development
about rusty tractors or failed projects and infrastructure after years of
accumulated in participatory communication, it seems that experience are repeating
same errors and weaknesses in the race to make the benefits of new
information technology and communication available to all. abound
stories about government-sponsored telecenters or NGO that
are empty, with its abandoned or stolen or being used only for equipment
those who have money to pay. There are even theories developed participatory
decades ago, issues arising from a similar scenario, albeit with different
tecnologías'3
Dear All,
It is a pleasure to join this discussion. I would like to share some field experiences about to how to facilitate access to knowledge and information to farmers through Communication for development (ComDev). I think the issue is that there is a need for planned and systematic use of communication activities/processes rather than just media and ICTs. There is also a need for reliable rural communication services integrating several media (ICTs, community media, etc) to serve multiple purposes, as well as for mechanisms to allow farmers’ participation in the definition of these services.
I would like to refer to an example from the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS). AIS includes a multitude of actors, such as producer organizations, research institutes, extension and advisory services, universities, governments, individual farmers, producer organizations and private sector groups (traders, processors, supermarkets, etc.) involved in a variety of processes related to improving agriculture. Communication plays a key role in linking up those actors and in improving the processes and services related to agricultural innovation. In particular extension and research institutions, as well as farmers organizations may benefit a great deal by including systematically ComDev strategies and plans based on needs assessment of information and communication needs of different rural audiences along the value chain.
The application of ComDev in AIS can be well exemplified by the work of the Communication for Sustainable Development Initiative (CSDI) in Bolivia. The project was launched in 2008 by FAO to develop, test and implement ComDev strategies and tools for sound environmental practices and sustainable rural development.
In collaboration with the National Institute for Innovation in Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry (INIAF) a national ComDev plan was implemented to enhance participation, dialogue and knowledge sharing among different AIS stakeholders. The project carried out participatory communication appraisals (PRCA) in order to identify needs of rural communities and local institutions in four pilot areas tackling topics prioritized by INIAF and other agricultural organizations. Furthermore, in each pilot area communication a series of Espacios Locales de concertación (Local negotiation space) were facilitated – involving farmer organizations and cooperatives, small-scale producers, local governments, NGOs and media - as platforms for dialogue and informed decision making.
Based on the results of local consultations, each community came up with a Local Innovation and Communication Plan (PLIC) identifying activities to support agricultural innovation and to at building local communication capacities. In particular, a set of communication tools and materials were developed and consolidated into knowledge and communication modules (KCM), following the principles of the Audiovisual Pedagogy:
Each KCM consists of a set of information and communication tools including videos, audio tracks and printed materials such as booklets, guides, flipcharts, brochures and posters.
As a tangible result of this experience a series of PLICs based on the use of KCM were implemented in each pilot area to share local and technical knowledge and facilitate participatory learning:
.An evaluation case study conducted in the project area highlighted how the ComDev methods used were appropriate to the characteristics of the target population. The training approach was primarily based on learning-by-doing, knowledge dialogue and exchange of experiences, conducted in a highly participatory, dynamic and interactive manner. The set of multimedia materials developed, especially video, proved effective in showing the concrete possibility for change and innovation in local settings. The end-users were considerably satisfied with the capacity development offered at community level. Video was considered the most relevant and useful tool to show similar farming experiences and demonstrate how the production increase experienced by other producers who adopted a new practice. The facilitators were satisfied with the process of mutual learning and consolidated their capacity to use ComDev methods as a tool for their work. The study detected new knowledge and work practices in the community, as a result of the training and practical activities that sparked the interest of the participants and motivated them to adopt the innovation.
This experience showcase the need for a shift from the use of ICTs for technology transfer based, to a broader understanding of how to involve multiple stakeholders in an innovation process through ComDev. A way to approach agricultural innovation and to promote social change based on a participatory communication approach rather than technologies.
Dear Colleagues:
My last contribution drew attention to issues of exclusion of family farmers in the use of ICTs.
There are very few documented narrations of the thousands of ICT initiatives across the developing world in agriculture that have not yielded their stated potential and have been unsuccessful. Because of this, we cannot learn more about why these initiatives failed.
The abuse of ICTs that have seriously affected smallholder farmers has also not been recorded in significant numbers. That does not mean there is no abuse. There is. Let me give to an example. In India, in the State of Karnataka, some very progressive Government administrators initiated a project to use GIS for electronic documentation of land ownership of farmers. Once the maps were drawn and publicly available, in addition to helping farmers, it also helped land sharks to grab land that did not have clear ownership or were owned by the Government. This was easy to do since the information was easily available. The result was farmers who owned ancestral lands but without clear legal documents were jeopardized in losing their land to these land grabbers. Also public lands which were used as communal pastures or as village lakes and ponds were relatively easy to grab as the Government could not easily maintain a watch of all of the land in its ownership and which could easily be disputed as water levels that demarcate these lands can vary and can be made to change to benefit those without scruples especially those that had political power. Resource poor smallholder farmers who grazed their animals on these lands lost out to the land grabbers who could manipulate the now easily available electronically kept land records.
In the UK, after the incidences of “mad cow disease” (BSE), private small-scale butcheries and small abattoirs were drastically affected by rules that enforced traceability (largely through electronic means) of the meat. This has made farmers producing meat dependent on large abattoirs that are usually owned by large food processing companies and supermarkets for selling their animals. This effectively removed the smallholder family farmers selling their own meat in local markets. A more unrecorded phenomenon was that farmers who traditionally produced local foods such as meat pies and sausages and retained a cultural heritage could not do so using the meat they had produced on their own farms. Thus the farmers not only lost economically and became dependent on large corporates but also the local heritage and culture was severely affected. As a consequence tourism and other similar vocations that contributed significantly as additional income for farmers were affected by the need for traceability that used ICT to manage records. It is not very difficult to reason why rural areas in UK and Europe are losing out farmers at a very rapid rate affecting rural economies, the environment and cultural heritage.
As experts in ICT use in agriculture, we must concern ourselves in exploring how information flows which are in consonance with commodities and associated financial flows in farming and production systems and the Agri-food chains and which cannot be disaggregated from each other, contribute and affect smallholder family farmers? We must analyze and document all phenomenon in ICTs use at a systems level. We must consider what happens when a farmer uses m-Pesa or Bitcoin which are not backed by conventional banking systems and have no reliable government assurance which is one of the key functions of the banks.
We must also explore how ICTs can help develop farming systems that can stop adverse phenomenon for farmers to happen. We need farming for many reasons other than food production. We must also consider whether the uses of ICTs are contributing to exclusion or inclusion in the farming systems that we now contribute to develop and innovate. Would the world like to have rural slums as we have urban slums of excluded individuals serving from the margins of societies rural industrial complexes that produce food and other agricultural products? And, all this because indiscriminate use of ICTs contributed to this happening.
Warm regards,
Ajit
Ajit Maru, GFAR
ICT as I said before but with limits, always good to anticipate good and bad things.
Let me come back to this point in order to share key points shared by CTA youth group on “The use of ICTs to strengthen link between youth and family farming”. (currently discussed)
- ICTs help promote youth involvement in agriculture by enhancing their opportunities, motivations and capacities.
- ICTs also contribute to improving youth livelihoods, agricultural modernisation and creating benefits throughout value chains.
They discussed:
a. how can we make better use of ICTs to address these issues the specific challenges faced by youth in family farming?b. Do we have examples of projects/initiatives in this area?
They highlighted that there are different types of young people:
Main challenges are:
Example of successful initiatives:
Savannah Young Farmers Network (SavaNet)
Their success is based on:
1. A youth participatory approach from A to Z in the development of ICT applications aimed at addressing the challenges youth face in family farming.
2. Innovative approach to suit the needs of young family farmers with less or no formal education.
3. The set up of ICT4Ag centers in rural communities: a one stop centre to practically harness diverse ICT applications while promoting their active engagement in Agriculture for increased Agricultural productivity.
Check their Audio Conferencing for Agricultural Extension (ACE) project - as published in the ICT update magazine, p.7: http://publications.cta.int/en/publications/publication/ICT065E/
Mkulima Young -
1. over 35,000 likes on Facebook and very interactive space.
2. Over 5,000 follower on twitter
3. A very interactive website with over 2,000 hits daily and last month was top ten most searched website according to google in Kenya.
Moma's Farm Project, an initiative aimed at enhancing food security through promoting draught animal traction and saving labour among women farmers in Nigeria. The project is using ICTs to achieve its objectives through Reality TV shows and audio-visual documentation of its activities.The Project is fully present on the internet with Website: www.momasfarm.com, or tweeter @momasfarm, Facebook page: Moma's Farm Project. It is also available on Google+ and Youtube.
An initiative of Farm Radio International in Mali. The initiative is about an innovative reality radio series in Mali called Daba Kamalen, in Bambara, and FarmQuest, in English. The show was designed to encourage youth to consider farming as a profitable business, and not just a means of subsistence, by following six young candidates competing to be named “best new farmer.” (Learn more here: http://www.farmradio.org/ourblog/2014/01/21/can-a-reality-show-really-deliver-aid-to-africa-yes/)