Question 3 (9 Dec.)

Hi All The Middleman Even in the previous posts that came up. Some tend to believe that middleman is someone from whom we should get rid of and ICT can be used for that. This is bit wrong way of thinking as well as a wrong positioning of ICT in Agriculture. So, some may go against the ICT in Agriculture initiatives (especially systems which provides market prices, etc.) and could try to sabotage those. Middleman also adds a value in the agriculture value-chains. So what we try to do is make the existing market systems more efficient (most of the time) than trying to change them completely. All the stakeholders also should be made aware on that fact. -Sameera.

Good day all! Great view from Sameera. The middlemen are very useful and create good value along the channel. But there is need to make all stakeholders understand that transparency and professionalism should be a classic participatory approach for effective tracking; considering that all wish to make profits. Its only demoralizing when they over exploit the farmers. Records should be able to show good practices by all parties on the assessment channel for sustainable growth and increase productivity. Incentives that will encourage small farmers to increase their capacity be put in place to encourage more production for fast and smooth development. We can guide against the downsides through dialogue; this will attrack more innovations on value for money. Thank you

Good day. I agree with Sea and Sameera that the middleman is necessary to maintain the dynamism of the values chains, but in some cases, as consequence of lack of transparency, they abuse of the "ignorance" of all "actors", mainly the small producers. When ICT are used like a tool of transparency of prices some middlemen try to avoid that the agrifood chains use technologies. How to avoid this problems? "This is the a million Dolar question". One idea... It is necessary to use ICT to give more transparency to the market and try forcing the transformation of the middleman into agents of change that give more value added to the agri food chain(credit, transformation of product, training, support the organization, etc.). Sounds simple, but I know that is a very difficult challenge.

I have a more precise question on potential downsides of using ICT in value chains: Do we have estimates of how much it costs for a small business or farmer to start using new ICTs in its value chain, and the corresponding extra income that can be netted from this use? Such cost/benefit analyses would be of great use for development partners to promote the good practices to farmers and business stakeholders who, ultimately, wish to know whether they are going to get some profit out of it. Jo

[quote="jo.cadilhon"] I have a more precise question on potential downsides of using ICT in value chains: Do we have estimates of how much it costs for a small business or farmer to start using new ICTs in its value chain, and the corresponding extra income that can be netted from this use? Such cost/benefit analyses would be of great use for development partners to promote the good practices to farmers and business stakeholders who, ultimately, wish to know whether they are going to get some profit out of it. Jo [/quote] Dear Jo, Your query is very pertinent but i would like to mention here that in case of developing countries, farmers will not be able to use these technologies unless these are funded by Government and other institutions.Like in india, ICt activities /infrastructure is funded by bothe private and public enterprises. government has started many portals to give updated info to the farmers as well as other intermediaries.One such portal is AGMARKNET, where most of the agricultural markets in India have been networked and the data on arrivals and prices of commodities is uploaded to be available to farmers throgh various nodes near to them. Farmers can have free access to this data. Similarly, agropaedia, a portal is being designed which gives informationmn about all aspects of agrivalue chain Sapna

[quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] Question 3 (9 Dec.) What potential downsides (negative impacts) might be experienced when ICT is used in the agricultural value chain? How can we guard against the downsides? [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] In developing countries where non-farmer stakeholders in the value chains especially middlemen become fully acquainted with ICT potentials, digitally divided farmers stand the danger of been ripped-off. For example, two different produce prices may exist, one for the farmer and the other for the middlemen ICT users since the farmer is isolated from the ICT-based transaction. The same is possible for farm input deals to the farmer. In essence, all category of farmers especially digitally divided ones must be fully carried on board with respect to ICT deployment in the agriculture value chains. This implies ensuring ICT proficiency among the vulnerable farm producers to guard against the downsides.

Thanks for that example Sapna, Here is the link to the portal just for reference: http://agmarknet.nic.in/ Lisa

Hi All Yes Sonigitu, transparency is key aspect and ICT helps to achieve it. That is why we say that e-Gov systems help to minimize the bribery and corruptions. As Henry correctly pointed out "ignorance" or abuse of small producers happen when there is no transparency. I would like to term it as "exploitation". When poor/small farmers or producers do not have limited or no access to information, they become vulnerable and could be exploited by the middleman. So tools such as mobile phones will empower the poor farmers with information and that would help farmers to make informed decisions. -Sameera.

For starters, I'm very happy to see all the comments on this question. I think it is a really important issue - one that is often overlooked in my perspective. Henry is right on in saying the the question on avoiding negative impacts is the "million dollar question". We may not have answer yet ... but if it's worth a million, it must be worth pursing!! :) "Does the presence of an ICT in a social group provide information/knowledge that helps to 'level the playing field' or does it risk further distorting advantages (or disadvantages) of a particular group?" This is what I always ask myself when reviewing a project. I have seen pilot studies where the latter happened unintentionally, but unfortunately they are not well documented. This is unfortunate. It would be good to see incentives for documenting challenges, even when they are not overcome. Jo's comments about better understanding economic return are also very important, but more work needs to be done before we have good models as far as I know. IICD and FAO are two institutions that wish to further our understanding of the impact of ICT on rural livelihoods, and one potential way to measure this is in the value chain. What Sapna presents is an interesting idea, but I do not think it is realistic to expect this to occur in most countries in a way that can offset the rate at which economically advantaged groups can acquire new technology on their own. Although maybe we should look for a model that would promote economically appropriate subsidies of technology for the disadvantaged … as long as it come with the needed contextualization and capacity. (I know Sapna is aware of this! But I am a bit skeptical of how most development initiatives, no matter how good intend they are, treat technology.)

[quote="sapnaaroranarula"] in case of developing countries, farmers will not be able to use these technologies unless these are funded by Government and other institutions.Like in india, ICt activities /infrastructure is funded by bothe private and public enterprises. government has started many portals to give updated info to the farmers as well as other intermediaries.One such portal is AGMARKNET [...] Farmers can have free access to this data. Sapna [/quote] Dear Sapna, On the funding and economic analysis of new technologies for value chains, what you describe above is an ICT that is provided as a public good by the government and used by private stakeholders, without cost for farmers. This looks very much like market information systems that are set up in some countries. For example, governments in France and Taiwan (Province of China) provide daily market information from the main terminal wholesale market on the internet. The more precise information is available for registered members only. While some farmers get a free login, the bigger business players interested in accessing price information must pay for their login. However, in both countries, these membership fees do not cover at all the costs of running the system. Thus, could you please tell us more about the financial setup of the Indian e-chaupal case that you mentioned in the discussion under Question 2. Although this system is commodity specific and directly related to the products of interest to the corporate buyer, where does funding come from to provide the hardware, software and capacity building of farmers to use the ICT? Could this funding arrangement be replicated by other agricultural value chains wishing to enhance their performance with ICTs? Jo

[/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] In essence, all category of farmers especially digitally divided ones must be fully carried on board with respect to ICT deployment in the agriculture value chains. This implies ensuring ICT proficiency among the vulnerable farm producers to guard against the downsides. [/quote] Hi Rabiu, I fully agree. The priority should lie on ensuring ICT awareness and profiency amongst the most vulnerable producers.

[quote="sapnaaroranarula"] Your query is very pertinent but i would like to mention here that in case of developing countries, farmers will not be able to use these technologies unless these are funded by Government and other institutions. Sapna [/quote] Hi Sapna, Though there may be some truth in your statement, in the sense that market information should (partly) be a public good, I think that we could also look at different levels of ICT-access and -implication. Looking at price-cost relevance, it is clear for instance that in Africa access to computers and the Internet at this moment can only be afforded by larger farmers' organizations (10.000+ members), unions and/or federations. Further down the line (small farmers' organisations), access to phone/fax and/or mobile phone (+ multimedia: computer based projections of slides, videos etc.) can be envisaged, while at the level of individual farmers radio/television and mobile phones can be used (+ multimedia). No large subsidies are required to keep information systems running up till the level of regions and provinces. And probably a majority of farmers in Africa still operates mostly at this level. Further up, when you talk about national and international systems, of course more investments and and running costs are needed.

[quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] Question 3 (9 Dec.) What potential downsides (negative impacts) might be experienced when ICT is used in the agricultural value chain? How can we guard against the downsides? [/quote] Coming from a developing country, the concern is what additional cost is that ICT been used introduces to the agricultural value chain and who is to bear that additional cost? I can not more than agree with Jo, on the points he raised. The farmers lack resources to manage their farms hence adoption of these tools becomes a challenge. An interesting observation that the world has come to appreciate is the impact of mobile telephony and technology. The major reason for its high usage is basically because the cost of the device and usage is relatively cheap. The case in India, where Public private partnership is thriving brings much interesting models for adoption by other developing countries. My personal view on this question is that, so long as the cost of adoption and use of the ICT outweighs the benefit the farmer derives from its usage the more we will experience negative impact across the entire value chain that is other stakeholders (middlemen) benefiting at the expense of the poor farmer. It therefore behooves that Governments especially and private sector through PPP develops appropriate business models that makes it profitable for all stakeholders in the chain. There are lessons to be learnt from India etc..

Hi All Thank you Worlali raising the concerns on Cost and Partnerships Downside COST We do not have big issue of cost when large companies are having automated farm management system, information management systems, etc. as the relative costs of ownership of ICT as well as usage cost are not that high. But when a poor farmer tries to get access to ICT, the relative costs of ownership as well as usage are very high. Against the downsides What can we do; Public Private Partnerships - governments can facilitate the private sector involvement encourage for innovations and investments Innovation - Cheaper tools - cost of ownership of a mobile phone has come down to as law as 10 USD. - Cheaper technologies - SMS will roughly cost you 0.01USD - Cheaper technologies - USSD (session based) access is free in some countries -Sameera.

[quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] Question 3 (9 Dec.) What potential downsides (negative impacts) might be experienced when ICT is used in the agricultural value chain? How can we guard against the downsides? [/quote] Dear Lisa, In my understanding and experience I find the ICT vendors and providers themselves will be the most detrimental downsides.We are aware that traders always try to earn more profit from their businesses.When the use ICT in agricultural value chains will be inevitable,the ICT traders will play novel tricks to monopolize or harvest more profits in various manners. To guard from such malpractices by the ICT traders governmental interventions and regulatory provisions are necessary. All the best, Tasnim