Question 2: What are the priority areas that producer organizations should invest in with regard to ICT?
To receive notifications of new posts in this forum, or to post a reply directly from your email, you need to simply click under "Account" > "Notifications" > "Create a new subscription" > "Content type" > "Forum topic". For any questions contact [email protected]
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.
I agree with you Father G. Sustaining a functional ICT system is truly expensive. But there be some strategies that we can do to make costs affordable. Yes, there are expenses, but the return can be more than generous. It may be that the ROI with an ICT system is much much hogher that the ROI of without ICT. Example is on the marketing side. Take into consideration how erratic the trade pricing of vegetables, in the morning the price is very high so farmers tend to rush harvesting time but in the afternoon when they trade their products, the price drops to very low causing a big loss in profit. With SMS messaging, changes in trade prices can be monitored every hour or even every half an hour.
But then, I agree with you that the whole structures supporting the agriculture sector should be treated as a whole - from transportation, roads and others.
Going back to reducing ICT cost, we can actually reduce costs if farmers worked through their organization, their cooperatives may operate a functional ICT system and combine information dissemination to individual farmers through print materials as applicable and public announcement through the radio.
Hi Susan and Fr G;
As regards to reducing ICT cost, setting up a small group discussions among farmer groups during their break from farm works, in a location wherein they are comfortably gathered, and where there is at least one unit of computer, a projector and a large screen to provide them updates on the new technologies used in the agricultural industry, might entice and awaken their interests to embrace new practices that would eventually help them in their everyday farming.
Small group discussions led by someone knowledgeable in ICT (maybe a member of producer organization or a volunteer) can be done on a regular monthly basis, or depending on the frequency of updated information to be shared with the farmer groups.
The cost of acquiring a computer and other equipments used in the small group presentation can be sourced out from NGOs or LGUs which can provide funding through their Local Development Funds.
Print outs or other printed materials might be easily ignored as they cannot readily provide answers to questions the farmers may have as information is presented to them in paper, unlike when there is a person who can respond immediately to their queries.
As regards to reducing ICT cost, setting up a small group discussions among farmer groups during their break from farm works, in a location wherein they are comfortably gathered, and where there is at least one unit of computer, a projector and a large screen to provide them updates on the new technologies used in the agricultural industry, might entice and awaken their interests to embrace new practices that would eventually help them in their everyday farming.
Small group discussions led by someone knowledgeable in ICT (maybe a member of producer organization or a volunteer) can be done on a regular monthly basis, or depending on the frequency of updated information to be shared with the farmer groups.
The cost of acquiring a computer and other equipments used in the small group presentation can be sourced out from NGOs or LGUs which can provide funding through their Local Development Funds.
Print outs or other printed materials might be easily ignored as they cannot readily provide answers to questions the farmers may have as information is presented to them in paper, unlike when there is a person who can respond immediately to their queries.
--- On Sat, 11/17/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [e-Agriculture] Question 2 (opens 14 Nov.)
To: "sansu" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, November 17, 2012, 4:30 PM
TV and radio are unquestionably still in use and could still be maximized so long as it is working and with a good signal in the field. Other radio programs are interesting and though I am not directly involved I am encouraged to try techniques and methods in farming, fishing, etc. The other investments on ICT would what make the sector more efficient, reliable and timely. Considerations will just be made as it is part of a long term plan.
Kelly
Putting up ICT infrastructure can be in no doubt an expensive venture. Many farmers, particularly those in rural areas and whose groups are not well organized, could find themselves economically disadvantaged on any serious ICT undertaking. This does not mean however that solutions cannot be found both in long and short terms.
Dr. Flor’s question (cf. his post on 15/11/12 – 16:53)---“Will ICT technology and services ever be a viable investment destination for the agriculture sector?”---needs to be seriously considered and should be asked by every producer organization, not only once, but as often as possible. What every farmer and all producer organizations need to understand is that ICT is here to stay; its growing sophistication and domestic and universal applicability opens countless windows of opportunity to producer organizations. It will be part of the social, political, cultural and economic landscapes for years to come. And because “the agriculture sector is as informatized as other sectors” (Dr. Flor), it would be perilous for any producer organization to underestimate the relevance of ICT investment now and in the future.
Hi Fr. G! Just wanted to share that Bryan for Question 1 and Harris and Chib in their Practices on ICTD Research and Practice article in Linking Research to Practice: Strengthening ICT for Development Research Capacity in Asia mentioned that traditional media such as radio, television, and landline telephony is still part of ICTD. The other forms of media are regarded as new media technologies. Actually, because of this information and what you have mentioned, I also feel that it is more effective to use and prioritize aside from those I mentioned previously a couple of days ago the radio. I understand from field researchers that one of the most effective means of communication in the villages in the Philippines is the radio. Further, I share the same idea with the other members of the forum that it is relatively more efficient (less costly) as compared to the other and new media technologies. I think it is essential that if we are going to use the radio, the radio programs should not only mention their comments on farming technologies but should provide simple delivery and easy to follow or step-by-step instructions on farming technologies to farmers or producer organizations. Nice to hear from you!
Hi Sir Sandy,
I don't think most agricultural POs in the Philippines invest in ICT, unless they are involved in some money lending schemes (like our coops). One real life case I can think of is the father of my officemate who owns a trucking business yet he's contented with using columnar pad for accounting. Somethimes a phone, paper and a pen will do.
Regards,
Harv
Dear All
We already discussed the importance of ICT for the farmers and their organizations. We discussed a lot about ICT role to facilitate farmers access to market, to negotiate with traders, to access knowledge and information etc..
We all know that producer organizations are very diverse. They exist at local level. Sometime they are federated a regional and national level and there are 2 international organizations representing farmers.
We all know as well that the relations between local organizations and their Apec organizations are complicated to say the least; accountability and transparency is difficult and costly to implement. If farmers want to have access to market and have their voice heard they need however to be organized from local to regional and/or national.
We also know that a lot of members of producer organizations are illiterate with difficult access to electricity but they almost all have a cell phone.
In this context we may discuss priority ICT investments for local producer organizations versus priority ICT investment for Apec producer organization.
Thanks Pierre for bringing this up. There is also another way of looking at the questions 'what the producer organizations should priortize', and in my view, that relates to advocacy for connectivity, capacity-building, etc vs investmnets by the producer organizations.
Contexts differ, and in contexts with limited connectivity, high costs, the producer organization might best sue its time for advocating for these issues. Whereas in 'improved' contexts, the priorties would center on capacity within the organization itself, servcies for members etc. Does this make sense - if so, do we have examples where producer organizations have been active on ICT related advocacy?
THe circumstances surrounding producers' organizations such as limited or scarce resources, low technical know how, poor access to relevant information creates a vicious cycle which underscores the great need for them to invest on ICT infrastructure and capacitating themselves to foster development. They should invest on training that will initiate them into the information age where they could explore and harness the possibilities of incorporating ICT and new media not only in their economic activities but in all aspects of their daily lives. However, we must recognize the fact that on their own it is next to impossible for them to do so because their priority is to put food on the table of their respective families. THis is where the government as well as non-goernemnt support should come in. Maybe support for capacitating leaders of producers' groups could be a good start coupled with PRovisions for ICT infrastructure.u
As articulated by Dr. Charulata Sing in an article published in the Global Media Journal-Indian Edition, "One source that liberates people from poverty And empowers them is knowledge. It is also now well understood that improvement of quality of life can be brought with application of ICTs." Even the UN in crafting the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) took various steps to ensure that the benefits of new technologies, especially ICT's are within the reach of every one.
For those producer organizations thinking about adopting ICTs, perhaps the very first pieces of the technology they should think about purchasing are a good used PC, a pirated spreadsheet program like Excel and a mobile phone. Then find someone who can teach the coop accountant or bookkeeper how to use them. It won't take long before he/she has figured out how to make their accounting tasks easier.Once the coop manager and board members see what can be done with these tools , they will see the advantages and be more receptive to more sophisticated forms of ICT. It's a first step and a simple step and a low cost step in the adoption process
Hi John Rouse,
How about adding the cheapest printer in the first step of the adoptation process in your recommendations to make it more complete? In this sense talking of practicality and completeness, there is an assurance that you may have printed materials for output.
From our experience in Busuanga Island where fishing is still a major industry after tourism, producer organizations like Kawil-Amianan, an association of lawful live fish traders invested in ICT for security purposes by establishing networks of surveillance posts to monitor illegal fishers which greatly impact their own livelihood. Mobile phones became very handy as almost everybody knows how to operate one. Handheld VHF radios work in areas where there are weak mobile phone signal or no signal at all. The use of GPS also increase accuracy and thus security of fishing operations. ICT to increase productivity in fishing may entail fish finders but these are availed only by bigger and more financially capable fishing operators.
In Senegal, fishermen are now using their cell phone to check the price of fish on various markets before going back to shore and they select the landing ground where the price is the best. Their organization is helping them to find out the best place.
Dear Pierre, it is very interesting to hear how fishermen are using their phones to choose the port of arrival based on prices. Do you have additional information about this? or the name of the organization(s)?
thanks,
Lisa
What are the priority areas that producer organizations should invest in with regard to ICT?
I think that there is no one answer for this question because the conditions vary greatly for each producer organization, region, country, etc., but in a general, I think that producer organizations need to focus on investment that allows them to function relatively independantly given that reliable communcation technolgies may be an issue. I think the focus should be on developing their own databse of information and making it available to their members in a comfortable user friendly environment. What specifically do I mean by this?
• I mean they need to buy a computer(s) and stock it(them) with as much relevant information as possible (for example this could mean multimedia materials on CD or DVD, or accessed by internet if that is possible). These materials could even be transfered to other media depending on what technolgy is appropriate. This could function as the basis of learning center for the organization. Therefore it must be a user friendly location where the members could feel comfortable in learning and using this technolgy.
I think that this is the most important factor is not buying technolgy but helping to create socially constructed knowledge about the computer as a useful tool to improve the farmers lives. That is to say that it is necessary for the members of the producer organizations to accept and believe that they can improve their lives by embracing the use of technolgy. This means education about the benefits of adopting techolgy and then farmers msut see measureable impacts on their lives.
So in short, the first priority should be education, then creation of a knowledge base on a computer, and then encouraging access of the average farmer, so they are not reliant on "the computer person" of the cooperative. ICT should be about empowerment of the members.
Peter
I agree with you Peter. Education as a way of empowering the people behind the organization should be given utmost importance. In the greater scheme of things, individual empowerment through education becomes social empowerment. And when an organization is socially empowered, their business enterprise becomes a social enterprise. Let me cite the example of an organization whose one of the founding officials I just had a discussion with on Facebook.
E-Veritas Trading (http://www.e-veritas.org/) is business enterprise with heavy emphasis on ethical and moral values. It believes in and promotes the interest of People, Planet, and Profit, in that order. Guided by the Catholic Social Teaching, it creates “a social enterprise that promotes the common good and human values of integrity, solidarity and creativity by making the urban and rural poor take personal responsibility for a common vision.” Among its various activities is establishing supply links with farmers from among indigenous peoples like the Mangyans in Mindoro and the Kalanguya in Nueva Viscaya (rural poor), have them deliver their farm produce to the members of the cooperative of the Parish of the Risen Christ in Tondo (urban poor), who will then sell the products to the city folks through the use of computers and mobile phones.
Here, we are seeing a partnership and a forming of a society of poor people from both rural and urban areas, and together empowering one another through an enterprise that is both business, social, and moral. The organic farming techniques employed by the indigenous people ensure that the planet is respected and sustainability is observed. The rural farmers communicate with the urban distributors through mobile phones, but all them are aware of their responsibility and accountability to one another (People), to the environment (Planet), and to their source of living (Profit).
If education is seen as empowering to producer organizations (for, indeed, it is), let it be an education on ICT and its business and social implications and moral values.
I agree with you Peter. Agriculture is a complex system, encompassing a wide range of acitivities and issues. The ICT side is also becoming more complex. Maybe the limitations to the adoption of ICTs in agriculture lie in the education levels and cultural background of rural communities, as well as a lack of motivation emanating from the farmer's scant perception of ICT's usefulness. This can be achieved if we can educate the farmers to handle growing volumes of data. In this context, ICT can become a powerful tool for farmers to access and organize the available knowledge.
- Koy
That is very true, Pete!
I remember the topic Knowledge Management and it would really work out in the agriculture sector. But yes, farmers must be educated in order to maximize the use of the computers and the software available.
Kelly
The education of farmers or producer organizations boomerangs back to the capacity of producer organizations to effectively utilize ICT, which sends us back to my initial contention that there needs to be a strong knowledge-base first so that resources do not go to waste - for instance, in the case of farmers requiring ICT capacity building and skills development, a good and very simple model could be conceived that would address the capacity and skills training needs of the respondents with the eventual end result of ICT implementation in their operations. The priority area, therefore, in this respect, is not really the purchase of ICT equipment or materials but framework or paradigm modelling.
Regards,
Bryan
While it’s true that knowledge management (KM) is applicable to the farmer sectors and almost all types of industry sectors, of equal importance is Change management or better called transition management (TM), Kelly.
I purposely buy the idea brought up by Peter on “embracing” ICT. This word sounds exactly what transition management is all about. Change is such a strong word to use here because it connotes result whereas transition is a subtle word which focuses more on the process. Knowing and using and prioritizing procurement of ICT gadgets, manipulating or having technical knowledge--all these should be done in a slow but sure manner. Call this transition management by such terms as “shifting gear” or “paradigm shift” but I really subscribe to the idea that incorporating the use of ICTs should not be done hastily. ( I guess the teacher in me is starting to work again, at this point) The psychology of the learners, in this case the farmers, or the fishermen, etc. should be one major consideration here. As in any transition management, the move should start from the individual, then to the group, next to the organization proceeding to the environmental.
Hello Bry, Peter, Fr. Narcisso, Koy, Kelly, and Dolores,
Reading your posts, these signify that ICT needs other fields of expertise. Although we are talking here of agriculture, producer organizations in relation to ICT, and what would be the priority to invest in ICT by the producers organizations, I am thinking about that the producer organizations not only need of ICT to meet the goal of tasks, but also requiring multi areas and degrees of professions. The same as ICT cannot functions completely without other interrelated knowledge of diverse professions, such as managers, agriculturists, weather viewers and forecasters, finance, accounting, and marketing even sociogists, researchers, and moralists. I think it is in these several interconnected disciplines that ICT can be able to fully function professionaly and successfully. So you are right in your critical opinion that education is needed, whether is formal or non-formal education. Building human capitals academically, morally, and religiously there is no doubt that goals of agricultural development in line with ICT can easily be achieved either owned by government projects or private sectors. Hence ICT in this perspective is merely one effective component in building the agricultural world, but is now becoming a great device to speed up the works and tasks of agriculture. As we cannot undervalue the importance of education, we cannot also do but value the fast movement of ICT's development in today's modern age. What I am trying to stress here is that ICT cannot stand alone; it is interconnected to other concentrations of studies. Thus, what would be the priority I should say financial is the primary imporant, followed of course by the study of the location (simple research) in order to identify the demands and needs of the target beneficiaries and to be able to design a kind of project of investment that addresses the needs, definitely intellectual resources and technical manpowers are also needed within both internal and extenal environments, plus above all the on-going social and community development, because the success of such investment rely also on the response, cooperation, and support of the target beneficiaries.
Dear Eva,
I agree with your thinging. Purpose of ICT shoud be to connect different fields of interest not working individually.
Why not use some comprehensive solution possibly with option to use on smartphones?
With such a solution to run farm business all involved parties (i.e. farmers, agricultural experts, veterinary experts, government, taxing service) would get an info of their interest about farm. Such a solution would minimize administrative work for farmers and give them posibility to be able to access much needed info on the spot.
Today famers no matter where cope with load of work and lack of funds.
It is true, that this type of infrastructure would mean high investment costs, but by combining different field of experts, costs could be spreaded between them which would mean lower investment costs for farmers.
Learning process would aslo be needed. But by convincing farmers and others, that all participants would really benefint from this (best solution is by constructing a good pilot project), I believe that they would be very willing to participate.
Regards, Gasper
Hi, Gasper and all!
I thought my opinion would not find relevant means to connect, I was wondering if I went beyond the bordiers of our #2 discussions. It is true Gasper, if I put this way my own limited reflection as when we look on the priority areas that producer organizations should invest with regards to ICT in the Philippines, in addition to my previous post, yes the Philippines is truly an agricultural country and every Filipino is proud of it. In this context, there is no doubt that agricultural and ICT can go far beyond success once there is sufficient funding, equipped knowledge in general or in specific technigues on management. However, considering the situation of agriculture in the country in this age, where there are those locations and regions that infrastructures, roads and means of transportation are still on the way to development, if I put myselft in the position of the producer organizations in the private or business sector, I might be thinking hundredfold reflections before making and prioritizing decision. Yes Gasper, meaning a depth feasibility of study must be done regarding the external environment that might certainly affect the investment. Certainly, the capacity of my internal resources both human and materials towards the needs and demands has to be put into consideration. So why not prioritizing an investment on planning and assessment on the particular location (pilot area) and considering the situation of the area is greatly important, as some of us already mentioned, such as mapping, observation and review, emersion and identification of the identifiable kinds of ICT applicable to be invested in that area in order to address the demands and needs.
Granting I have the fund and knowledge, I will not lose my effort, time, and investment for nothing. Part of the plan maybe the timeframe, kind of project, and for whom and what would be the aim which I am trying to attain, it depends on the goals and objectives, for instance is this for gaining profit or for community service? If I will be the investor, in the case for ICT, belong to private or business; government or owners of the land, or even funding agencies, I will invest my resources that will end progress in return. That is why, in the initial part, which some of us already stated, such study of the location could be the priority and considering the possible resources.
I think this is necessary. So, it depends on the area, location is indeed imperative when we think of investing ICT in the agricultural condition of the Philippines. Some of us are correct in our reflection that investing ICT vary on the context. If we are trying to invest ICT on the frontiers and develop agricultural zone, connection, electricity and accessibility are available then we can answer the question that pertains to the investment of equipment and specific technical knowledge on it. On the other hand, if we reflect on the underdeveloped condition of agricultural reality of the country, which is still on the way, we can only adapt to the capacity of people and place. Yes, Sir Sandy is correct, capacity building, then adjusting to the situation for the meantime. What would be other solutions? Yes, it is really to augment funds and resources for the initial and sustainability. This would entail global and communinal supports and collaborations surely, but another question is how long would it be in our case to be dependent in terms of sourcing funds particularly in the case of the socio-economic underpriviledge? Yes, #3 question is now opening our dynamic and brilliant minds to find more answers.
Thus, to be realistic in the investment whether it is in the ICT or not, and let us put it in the ICT's perspective in relation to agriculture, planning and decision making are imperative. It calls for re-integration process. Thank you.
I agree with you Peter. ICT should be about empowerment of the members of the organization. Now how to do?
Farmers must be educated (certainly yes) and tehy need capacity building. At the same time how can ICT value what farmers already know? What farmers want ? How can ICT build on existing farmers knowledge to have it recognised.
Farmers when organized, have goals and objectives they want to acheive. The beauty of ICT is that it may be complex technology but most often easy to use technology. Look at the celle phone or the computers.
How can ICT help farmers get organized and empowered to have their voice heard or to negotiate contracts, collectively so their bargaining power is bigger than if they negotiate on an individual basis?
Hello Pierre
Thank you for your reply. I think that you raise an interesting point: At the same time how can ICT value what farmers already know?
I believe that not many posters have touched on this issue, and have looked at ICT as the delvery system of some better "outside" or external solution. I think that the social dimesion of incorporating ICT has been somewhat overlooked in the our discussions.
I believe that without recognizing the value of the farmers knowledge and local traditions, any ICt project will be at best slowed, and at worst, ignored. I read with some dismay the use of the term, "techo-peasant", which I found to be quite derogatory. How can something that does not respect the people that are involved being in any empowering.
So I turn back to your querstion:
At the same time how can ICT value what farmers already know?
I think that this is a quite a simple matter (at least in theory) but it is simply to involve the farmers at every step of the process. Farmers can be the "players" in video, the voices in broadcasts. Their knowlegde can be shared with other farmers in addition to the "outside" knowledge so that this is a cooperative effort which while also leading to a wider education and knowlwedge platform, will also empower the farmers because they are part of a joint solution top the challenges of their locale.
++++++++++++++++
Once farmers get more control over ICT, I think it can be an effective tool of cutting out the middleman. If farmers are able to directly discuss and negotiate prices using ICT (again further empowerment), then they may be able to get better pricing, particularly on items that may be less susceptible to market fluctuations (such as farm equipment).
Naturally, the local knowledge leading to cooperative purchases would be essential (and further empowering) in determining what was needed and what prices the cooperatives could manage. Management of producer groups could be further democratized by ICT.
Regards,
Peter
ICT adoption is influenced by factors like: location, size and income level of the operation, access to market, insertion to the production chain, technological level and the age and education of the producers. Thus, to take advantage of ICT and to reverse asymmetrical development in agricultural production; measures such as developing mechanisms on the exchange of regional experiences (best practices) like facilitating access of farmers to ICT using telecentres, computer supply and connectivity programs for rural school, motivational and educational strategies aimed at overcoming resistance, demonstrating the usefulness of the technologies and developing digital skills are needed. For virtual capacity, implementing data flatforms and portals are recommended. With the assumption that connectivity will be supplied by the National Telecommunications Office, efforts should be focused on motivating farmers to adopt ICTs in management and production. It is very important that policies should be technically and financially feasible and sustainable and take into account the specific characteristics of the production systems, technological evolution and the range of interactions with the competitive, institutional and social environment should be in place. – Monica Rodrigues, Economic Affairs Officer, ECLAC http://www.eclac.cl/socinfo/noticias/paginas/3/44983/newsletter18ENG.pdf
The Department of Budget and Management in cooperation with the Department of the Interior and Local Government, Department of Agriculture, Department of Agrarian Reform, National Anti-Poverty Commission and the National Statistics Office spearheaded the Registry System for Basic Sectors in Agriculture (RSBSA) an important endeavor by the Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Cluster headed by His Excellency President Benigno S. Aquino III. This is in response to the need for a comprehensive and systematic information system that caters to the various data and information needs of economic development, planners, policymakers, and project implementors. RSBSA uses ICT, filled-up forms are scanned and stored in database.
Until now, the discussion on question 2 is mainly on ICT products needed to improve agriculture, market access etc..
If we look at the question from the point of view of a rural producer organization leader, we may find that leaders may be interested in ICT products to help them better manage their organizations for their organizations to be more efficient in delivering services demanded by members.
Leaders have access to information (policy, market opportunities etc..) and knowledge that they want to share with members and other leaders, and they may want to hear from each other as well. Organizing meeting is costly and time consuming in particular in rural areas. What ICT technology can help producer organization leaders share information with other leaders and members and receive feedback from them? Leader may want ICT product them solve conflict between members or between their organization and traders or Government institutions. Leader may want ICT products to help them have members voice heard by Government, by consumers, by traders or food industries etc. . What ICT instrument exist for that? Leader may want to have ICT products to help them negotiate (as an organization not as an individual) with traders and or government officials, etc. .
When we look at the web site of the Conseil National de Concertation des Ruraux in Senegal (http://www.cncr.org), we can see that their site is to share information about who they are, what they do etc.. When I was working with them, they wanted to develop a CNCR intranet to better connect with their regional and grass root member organizations. I don't know if they have their intranet today.
What kind of ICT products can help people leaving in rural areas, better connect between themselves and their leaders when distance between people is important, roads are not good, services are not always efficient, etc.. The ICT technology must be cheap, easy to operate (which does not mean not complex, cf. the cell phone or computers), robust, reliable etc…
Pierre
Sir Pierre,
Just a little turn around in ICT.
It is widely acknowledged (in academics and in practice) that radio as an ICT product is still an effective medium to connect people even with geographic distances. Producer organizations can still and should take advantage of this medium despite the popularity of internet and mobile phones (which also have their limitations in rural areas where power and connection signal can be irregular or poorly accessed) because farmers still regard radio as their source of information.
The operation of local radio networks would serve the purpose of reaching the farmers locate, match their produce with the market demands, and perhaps, invite exchange of information through interactive/participative programs aired over the radio.
Dear Sansu
You are very right, radio is a remarquable instrument to connect rural people together and a lot of producer organization try to use radio for that purpose. They are often facing difficulties to obtain the license to have a local radio and radio may be costly to run.
Are you or anyone aware of easy radio technology that farmers organizations could run without having to have a studio etc...???
Hi Sir Pierre
I agree with you and Sansu that mobile phone and radio are the easiest and most convenient ICT to connect rural people with difficult access. They are not also expensive.
Here is a link that offers radio technolody without the use of a studio
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/askjack/2012/feb/09/ask-jack-recor…
There are also mobile phones with access to FM stations. FM stations can also air agricultural related news.
Hi Pierre,
In the Philippines, one cannot own transmitters or transceivers without registering with the National Telecommunications Co., our telco regulating body. The frequencies used are also applied to the said entity, so the cheapest way to broadcast is through the Net. I have seen amateur "radio stations" being broadcast via Ustream.
Regards,
Harv
Hi Sansu,
One of the main problems that many agricultural marketing cooperatives is how best to bridge the physical distance between outlying collection points or primary societies and the mother cooperative. This is especially true for dairy cooperatives and other cooperatives marketing highly pershible products daily communication between outlying collection points and the main cooperative area critical. Do you or does anybody have any idea of what might be the infrastructure requirements and investment costs of setting up a WLAN lets say to cover an area of 1-5 kms?
My own opinion is that our discussion on question 2 should focus more on improving business efficiencies at the local (member-to-coop) level rather that focusing most of our attention on Internet and web access at higher levels as you seem to be arguing.
Hi Sir John,
In the Philippines, it costs about P2,000.00 or about $49 per unit to set up WLAN in a small computer area or what we call computer shop. The cost could get lower depending on your contact who could give you lower prices or discounts.
Yet, the practice of corporate social responsibility or csr by some organizations which could support producer organizations can pave the way in setting up a small area of interconnected computers which the farmers or members can use, given that they are trained or equipped in dealing with the new technology or ICT, which, in the long run could help transport the produce from farm to market.
Hi John, Sansu,
I believe the cost is more than that as that will only cover a very basic computer. To be able to reach 5km, we will be needing a strong router with antennas and/or repeaters. A good line of sight is also needed so the signal won't drop.
Regards,
Harv
Sansu made a good point, the nature of life in most rural communities is that of a subsistence manner. In the Philippines, the radio is a complementary component in promoting agriculture and rural development. Planned radio campaigns complementing face-to-face advise and extension, with administrative and material support available can motivate, can inform, can entertain, can unify and can contribute towards desirable change.
Hi Pierre,
I fully agree with you that perhaps the most important role that ICT can play within producer organizations is to help bridge the considerable information gap that continues to exist in many producer organizations and by doing so: 1) make PO business managers more accountable to satisfying member business needs; 2) improve PO business management efficiency; 3) encourage member users to invest in the growth of their PO business and provide the IC technology to facilitate that ; and 4) strengthen PO financial self-reliance.
John
Hi Pierre and John,
I like the way you have distinguished between the areas of need and the logic of going about it. One way of looking at it from a PO perspective would be perhaps the following:
1. Advocacy by PO or an umbrella PO for connectivity in the rural areas
2. Building the PO ICT base and skills (whether radio, internet, videos for learning, off-line courses, mobile based services, etc) for PO (core) connectivity, management, and outreach to members - tools and approaches that are needed for this to take place
3. Tools and building approrpiate skills of a wide range of PO members to connect and use of PO sservices, including ICT based services
The discussion thread has identified a number of areas that fit under this.
Riikka
John and Riikka, I believe the dicussion is helpfull
It seems we may identify different technology for different purpose
- IC technology for the organization to be more efficent, more transparent and more accountable : radio, web, others ....
- IC technology to increase business performances of the organizations and its members (i) local and distant market information, (ii) market opportunities, (iii) knowledge/technology information (extension) others... . These are cell phone, web, radio as well, K7, others...
- IC technology for advocacy at local regional and national level to value their knowledge and tradition and have their voice heard in on radio, social networks, forums etc..
- How IC technology can facilitate farmers access to financing and what would be the role of the farmer organization??
In any case, as Riika say there is a need to build the PO ICT base and skills (whether radio, internet, videos for learning, off-line courses, mobile based services, etc) either for them to run the IC technology or to contract out the management of these technology and being able to control the work done by the professional.
Hello Pierre and John, I agree with you that there is a need to bridge the information gap. In the meantime, the producer organizations need to focus the ICT-in-agriculture intervention on the need for better and more timely market information, better access to financial services, timely and appropriate crop and disease management advice and stronger links to agricultural value chains. Through this, the PO can help their members, which in turn, will make it easier for the PO to encourage member users to invest in the ICT. Koy