Looking back at this post -  Thu, 25/09/2014 - 10:10 by Ajit Maru (GFAR Secretariat)~~However, I would like to point out that while there is a lot of documentation and anecdotal information available on the potential use of ICTs to improve family farming based on pilot projects, as provided in this forum also, there is very little hard evidence on the impact and sustainability of these projects as also what has been the learning from almost 20 years of our experience in the use of the “new” ICTs such as computers and cellular telephony, for agricultural development.

I think the Question 1 comment that Ajit posted is quite relevant here in the discussion of policy. I believe there is a lack of outcome and impact assessment work in e-agriculture. Models/methodologies from other agricultural R&D do not transfer well to ICTs. Likewise telecoms/ICT studies are mostly adoption studies - fairly limited in determining development outcomes and impact. Work by  leading international bodies (OECD, World Bank, etc.) is too "macro".  Work at the local level is too anecdotal and qualitative methods will go so far for policymakers  (but I firmly believe quantiative/econometric analysis alone is insufficient without qualitative, user-oriented data collection methods).

 So in other words, there is a  "catch 22" evidence based decision making for e-agriculture is demanded by policy makers and yet there has been little investment in this area.

Around the world, we are dealing with issue (hence the importance of baseline data collection in a project or sharing M&E info) . Just to say that in work here in Ontario this is also a huge issue - an example of what's happening in rural Canada  see: http://swiftnetwork.ca/

Helen

I agree with the above list of the obstacles: availability, access,  affordability, relevance which includes timeliness, trustworthiness, and usefulness of the content - and then the range of behavioural and social considerations that influence how smallholder farmers make effective use of ICTs and the information/knowledge that can be mobilized on them. The other obstacle I would add based on our experiences with research is TIME. Farmer time to access and use ICTs. A couple examples:

- in Ontario, Canada we found that farm women are true knowledge multitaskers in the family who act as infomediaries - going online to source and send farm related info - complete online forms, arguee the telecoms billing, etc. Women who work off-farm may also use their job-based access to higher speed internet to access online farm-related info; in contrast male farm operators spend less time online and report feeling frustrated with online info access - their preference (not from the studies we've done - only anecdotal - is speed dial on their cell phones to other farmers/agricultural representatives)

- in field studies my  students and I have done in Sri Lanka, Ghana and Bangladesh, TIME has been cited as a factor for farmer access to information,, particularly time to participate in listening clubs, communicate with other farmers/seek out and visit NGOs etc.

In your experiences, since agriculture is typically hands-on, field-based work, time can be a genuine obstacle to smallholder farmers' uptake and use of ICTs in agriculture? Those in the costly field of "precision agriculture" (use of high tech, data intensive tools in agriculture) recognize time as a major obstacle (and selling point for "smart agriculture" applications).

Helen

 

 

Greetings from the University of Guelph! I've enjoyed reading the posts on this discussion question 2. Thanks Alberto for the super example of Esoko.com  -- also for the new LEI-WUR report Bart!

Something to add ...

Well this week our research project in Sri Lanka on Mobilizing Knowledge for Sustainable Agriculture using ICTs and Open Source Software has been busy. What's happening is a series of field pilot studies termed as “campaigns”, involving agriculture communities and conducted in the Kurunegala, Matale, and Batticaloa Districts in Sri Lanka. Farmers identified various knowledge mobilization activities, ranging from exchanging local crop price information, to alerting on elephant attack, to disease control, general inquiries, announcements, so on and so forth. This presentation will discuss the insights gained as well as challenges faced by the research team in carrying out the campaigns, with a view to developing a better understanding of key factors of partnership development for promoting inclusive innovation among these communities of practice. You can get project info/updates on the blog:

http://mobilizingknowledge.blogspot.ca/2014/09/post-campaign-community-meetings-day-one.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+MobilizingKnowledgeForSustainableAgriculture+(Mobilizing+Knowledge+for+Sustainable+Agriculture)

As well in this project we're finalizing our report on experiences among rural radio stations in Sri Lanka including important changes affecting farm/rural narrowcasting due to emerging new forms of digital radio broadcasting. Radio+ is a game changer but not without its challenges which I'll post on discussion question 3 (radio plus = conventional radio narrowcasting/broadcasting plus use of digital/mobile technologies as well as technologies including open source software that change broadcaster-listener/listening groups interactions).

Many "tools" that were used in many different gender and development initiatives have been transferred to and used in the context of ICTs and agriculture and rural development to meets the challenge of gender equality. These tools include efforts such as training and learning opportunities, strengthened advocacy, inclusive policies/rule-making for availability, accessibility and sustainability of ICTs for rural women. Other examples were mentioned in this forum. But MORE has to be done and everything has to be done BETTER... we know this to be the case because we see the continuing inequalities experienced by women and men in our societies and economies. We live in an ICT world now --- where being excluded from information, communication and knowledge breaks a fundamental human right. And I am implying that such inequality exists locally, nationally, but also, worldwide. For me, it is power relations that underpin all examples of gender inequality, including those involving ICTs. These arise in systemically structured discrimination against women as well as in the loss of human rights for all and especially men who do not want to be bystanders in the violation of women's rights or who, reject patriarchal roles that no longer fit with their view of themselves as men or in their life with their children/spouse/family/friends/co-workers, etc.. There are many, many conventions, policies and rules in place for preventing and stopping gender inequality. Governments have signed onto them and sometimes, invest in programs. Let's congratulate governments when these rules work - let's tell them when they don't! The current challenge I believe is to ACT ON, ENFORCE (speak up) and FOLLOW UP gender policies. In other words, Let's "use the tools to enforce the rules" -- this is why I like tools such as GENDER and ICT AUDITS; GENDER ANALYSIS of Project Outcomes; MENTORING for gender and ICT students/practitioners; SMALL FUNDS (like GenARDIS) to do innovative work in more places; BIG FUNDS for investing in gender-responsive ICT entrepreneurship ...

Hi everyone- I'm Helen Hambly Odame and I'm a faculty member at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. My areas of interest are rural extension studies, communication for social and environmental change, gender issues in agriculture, and innovation systems. With respect to media/ICTs I am especially keen on rural radio. In the late 1990s - early 2000 while I was a research officer at the International Service for National Agricultural Research, I was collaborating with CTA on the project "Gender and Agriculture in the Information Society" which eventually led to the creation of GenARDIS. I'm very pleased to be part of this discussion group and look forward to hearing from many old and new friends and colleagues working in the area of Gender, ICTs and Rural Livelihoods. You can also see more information and resources on these pages: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~hhambly http://www.uoguelph.ca/snowden best regards Helen

Greetings from Guelph, Canada Two areas of work really interest me - issues surrounding gender and the other area is rural radio. I work mainly in Africa and in rural Canada. In Africa, the area of rural radio is critical and I see it firsthand through my research on links between science and society and the work I do with organizations like DCFRN (www.farmradio.org). The arguments why rural radio can strengthen agricultural systems and community development in Africa are well documented. I'm not repeating them here. I offer any collaboration through this platform to reinforce the efforts made by many people and institutions in this area of work. Not just in theory, but in practice of ICTs and development the human right to communicate remains very important. Gender and ICT networks continue to push on. Gender related work is difficult due to the crises of the gender debate within development. Yet, simple as it sounds - few places in the world have overcome the gender bias of information and communication technology access and relevance of content. In this forum we should consider efforts towards ICT literacy, power relations from information control and denial of communication rights. I do think this the topic of ICTs and agriculture is a global issue - in Canada we are struggling for high-speed internet access in rural areas where the survival of small and medium-size family farms is difficult. HH