Forum: 2013 CTA ICT OBSERVATORY “Strengthening e-Agriculture Strategies in ACP Countries”
Question 5 (opens 5 Mar.)
13/02/2013
Question 5: Stakeholder roles: What are the roles of ICT and agricultural stakeholders in e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation? How can we ensure the full participation of farmers and other non-governmental stakeholders ? What are the role(s) of the Ministry in charge of ICT and the one in charge of Agriculture? What role(s) for international stakeholders?
Submitted by mawaki chango on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 08:44
Dear all,
Now is the time to debate the one but last question put forward for discussion. It addresses Stakeholder roles:
What are the roles of ICT and agricultural stakeholders in e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation? How can we ensure the full participation of farmers and other non-governmental stakeholders ? What are the role(s) of the Ministry in charge of ICT and the one in charge of Agriculture? What role(s) for international stakeholders?
So please consider carefully ways to ensure the effective and full participation of the following stakeholders:
1) FARMERS
2) OTHER NON-GOVERNMENTAL structures
And outline the role of the following stakeholders:
3) GOVERNMENT ICT Department
4) GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE Department
5) INTERNATIONAL structures/agencies
For each one of the above stakeholders, please do so keeping in mind all three phases an e-strategy would go through:
1) FORMULATION
2) IMPLEMENTATION
3) EVALUATION
Best regards,
Mawaki
Now is the time to debate the one but last question put forward for discussion. It addresses Stakeholder roles:
What are the roles of ICT and agricultural stakeholders in e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation? How can we ensure the full participation of farmers and other non-governmental stakeholders ? What are the role(s) of the Ministry in charge of ICT and the one in charge of Agriculture? What role(s) for international stakeholders?
So please consider carefully ways to ensure the effective and full participation of the following stakeholders:
1) FARMERS
2) OTHER NON-GOVERNMENTAL structures
And outline the role of the following stakeholders:
3) GOVERNMENT ICT Department
4) GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE Department
5) INTERNATIONAL structures/agencies
For each one of the above stakeholders, please do so keeping in mind all three phases an e-strategy would go through:
1) FORMULATION
2) IMPLEMENTATION
3) EVALUATION
Best regards,
Mawaki
Submitted by Benjamin Kwasi Addom on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 18:00
Hi All,
1) Formulation: I think with the presence of National ICT Policies in most countries now, the "Government Agriculture Departments" (using the terms directly from the question) should take the lead in the formualtion of national e-Agriculture Strategies using a multi-stakeholder approach. In other words, extensive consultation with stakeholders such as farmers and farmer associations, traders, private sector value added service providers, mobile network operators, ministry in charge of ICTs, etc. in the process will define the usefulness of the final product. Farmers can share their challenges related to access to information, which the ministries of Agriculture and ICTs can take into consideration in the formulation process. The private sector's contribution at this stage could be in the form of financial support in bringing stakeholders together, etc. The international organizations may help with the technical know-how and capacity building for the government actors in the policy formulation. And NGOs may help in advocay and awareness creation for the need of such policy. I like the strong collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Post & Information Technology and Communication of Ivory Coast in this process but believe the leadership of the Agricultural Ministry is important.
2) Implementation: If the government takes the lead in formulating the policy, why not allow the private sector to take the lead in implementation. Implementation of the strategy will involve investments - infrastructure and applications. So using the same multi-stakeholder approach, the private sector can work with the government ministries, international actors, farmers, NGOs, and others to ensure the implementation of the strategy. Government departments such as agriculture which is in direct contact with the users (farmers and traders), should be closely involved in the implementation to ensure universal access and universal service. Definitely, financial support from the international actors for the implementation will be important here. Feedback from farmers in the implementation process can also lead to success.
3) Monitoring & Evaluation: For the entire process to be neutral, I see the leadership role of international actors in the monitoring and evaluation process. Using experiences from other sectors and across countries, international organizations involved in the process can ensure the goals and targets set up in the strategy are being met during the implementation, and to ensure that the language of all stakeholders in the strategy are adhered to. Again, this should be a multi-stakeholder approach utilizing experiences, expertise and feedback from all the actors including farmers about how these strategies are being implemented. International organizations should solicit feedback and responses from users, implementers, and formulators to see if the needs of all actors are being met.
Let me hear what others are thinking!
Ben
1) Formulation: I think with the presence of National ICT Policies in most countries now, the "Government Agriculture Departments" (using the terms directly from the question) should take the lead in the formualtion of national e-Agriculture Strategies using a multi-stakeholder approach. In other words, extensive consultation with stakeholders such as farmers and farmer associations, traders, private sector value added service providers, mobile network operators, ministry in charge of ICTs, etc. in the process will define the usefulness of the final product. Farmers can share their challenges related to access to information, which the ministries of Agriculture and ICTs can take into consideration in the formulation process. The private sector's contribution at this stage could be in the form of financial support in bringing stakeholders together, etc. The international organizations may help with the technical know-how and capacity building for the government actors in the policy formulation. And NGOs may help in advocay and awareness creation for the need of such policy. I like the strong collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Post & Information Technology and Communication of Ivory Coast in this process but believe the leadership of the Agricultural Ministry is important.
2) Implementation: If the government takes the lead in formulating the policy, why not allow the private sector to take the lead in implementation. Implementation of the strategy will involve investments - infrastructure and applications. So using the same multi-stakeholder approach, the private sector can work with the government ministries, international actors, farmers, NGOs, and others to ensure the implementation of the strategy. Government departments such as agriculture which is in direct contact with the users (farmers and traders), should be closely involved in the implementation to ensure universal access and universal service. Definitely, financial support from the international actors for the implementation will be important here. Feedback from farmers in the implementation process can also lead to success.
3) Monitoring & Evaluation: For the entire process to be neutral, I see the leadership role of international actors in the monitoring and evaluation process. Using experiences from other sectors and across countries, international organizations involved in the process can ensure the goals and targets set up in the strategy are being met during the implementation, and to ensure that the language of all stakeholders in the strategy are adhered to. Again, this should be a multi-stakeholder approach utilizing experiences, expertise and feedback from all the actors including farmers about how these strategies are being implemented. International organizations should solicit feedback and responses from users, implementers, and formulators to see if the needs of all actors are being met.
Let me hear what others are thinking!
Ben
Submitted by zainul DR. SYED MD. ZAINUL ABEDIN on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 19:53
This post sounds more meaningful.
The details mentioned here may be useful for the participants.
The details mentioned here may be useful for the participants.
Submitted by Brad Clarke on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 13:17
Ben,
I am in support of most of the arguments you put forward in your post. The point that concerns me is that low level of trust that you seem to have in your local stakeholders ability to monitor and evaluate the process. Indeed this may be as a result of your experiences.
Notice that the responsibility matrix model proposed involve multiple stakeholders but excludes government directly. the management of any initiatives seems to work much better when government is not directly involved as their role as regulator and enabler would conflicting.
One solution that has worked well is when the primary stakeholders and major benefactors are integral in the monitoring and evaluation. Interventions are more proactive as deterioration in operations may result in loss of intended benefits.
Another is to establish an independent autonomous body that monitors and evaluates initiatives such as e-agriculture. In this regard each stakeholder can have representational presence and decision making powers. This has been successful in Jamaica through commissions such as that responsible for Electoral matters.
I am in support of most of the arguments you put forward in your post. The point that concerns me is that low level of trust that you seem to have in your local stakeholders ability to monitor and evaluate the process. Indeed this may be as a result of your experiences.
Notice that the responsibility matrix model proposed involve multiple stakeholders but excludes government directly. the management of any initiatives seems to work much better when government is not directly involved as their role as regulator and enabler would conflicting.
One solution that has worked well is when the primary stakeholders and major benefactors are integral in the monitoring and evaluation. Interventions are more proactive as deterioration in operations may result in loss of intended benefits.
Another is to establish an independent autonomous body that monitors and evaluates initiatives such as e-agriculture. In this regard each stakeholder can have representational presence and decision making powers. This has been successful in Jamaica through commissions such as that responsible for Electoral matters.
Submitted by Henry Ligot on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 02:53
Last Monday, 4 March, I was with a top executive of a huge Philippine company that sells feeds (from cassava) to agribusinessmen. He spends thousands of hours each year talking to farmers, and he told me that the secret of his effectiveness in getting them to adopt new technologies is rather simple: get the farmers involved right from the start and learning to think like them by asking himself the question "What's in it for me as a farmer?" In other words, communicate properly the message of how they can earn more and you have them. But it doesn't end there. Selling new technologies needs trust, and since the results take some time, he told me that the best way to gain their trust is to spend time with them. Farmers are used to salesmen selling them new things and disappearing when the "supposed" results are due. The reason this executive is so successful is that he knows his technology, if properly implemented, will work. He knows it will work if the farmers make it work (by following the procedures). And he knows they will make it work if they see his confidence and he spends time visiting them, asking them about their problems, suggesting solutions, etc.
Farming is a time-intensive operation, but once you invest time and you win over their trust, you're on the way to sustainable success. Of course, sometimes things don't work out as it did recently (because we had several strong typhoons that caused terrible damage), so he had to go out to the farms again to encourage the farmers not to give up.
While him as private sector orchestrates all these, he depends on the farmers themselves, NGOs, government agencies, and agricultural schools to provide support. The key is the farmer, get into their minds, address their concerns, and chances of success are great. This is what our Dept of Agriculture did when they drew up their e-Agri strategy. But planning is one thing, implementation is another.
Farming is a time-intensive operation, but once you invest time and you win over their trust, you're on the way to sustainable success. Of course, sometimes things don't work out as it did recently (because we had several strong typhoons that caused terrible damage), so he had to go out to the farms again to encourage the farmers not to give up.
While him as private sector orchestrates all these, he depends on the farmers themselves, NGOs, government agencies, and agricultural schools to provide support. The key is the farmer, get into their minds, address their concerns, and chances of success are great. This is what our Dept of Agriculture did when they drew up their e-Agri strategy. But planning is one thing, implementation is another.
Submitted by zainul DR. SYED MD. ZAINUL ABEDIN on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 03:50
This is a great point to consider.
Thanks to the contributor.
Thanks to the contributor.
Submitted by Brad Clarke on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 06:21
Participants,
I suppose this is where the "rubber hits the road", who is responsible for what and who will do what. Ben, your contribution to this question is noted, appreciated and agreed with in most areas. I am approaching the role of stakeholder from a service management framework perspective.
According to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITILv3), a service has a lifecycle of five (5) phases. Service Strategy, Service Design, Service Transition, Service Operation and Continual Service Improvement. Microsoft Operations Framework (MOF 4.0) outlines a service lifecycle to include; Plan, Deliver and Operate phases and a Manage layer. I believe we can fit the e-agriculture strategies into any of these two frameworks to help determine the role of each stakeholder.
Accepted pronouncements:
- government makes policies, regulates and act as an enabler;
- government does not operate successful businesses;
- Economic growth is driven by the private sector;
- increasing wealth requires investment in research and technology;
- the broader the level of participation, the greater the possibility of success.
If all stakeholders were to ask the question raised by Emligot, "What is in it for me?" then the process of role definition even becomes more clear. Combining this with objectives such as economic/social development, viability of the agriculture industry and empowerment of stakeholders also brings into sharp focus the critical role of stakeholders in the overall process.
Here is my view of the stakeholders rolein a responsibility matrix below.
Stakeholder e-agriculture strategies phases
Formulation Implementation Evaluation
Farmer Yes Yes Yes
NGOs Yes Yes Yes
Government ICT Dept Yes Yes No
Government Agri. Dept Yes Yes No
International agencies Yes No Yes
As usual let me hear your perpectives as we continue in this knowledge sharing experience.
I suppose this is where the "rubber hits the road", who is responsible for what and who will do what. Ben, your contribution to this question is noted, appreciated and agreed with in most areas. I am approaching the role of stakeholder from a service management framework perspective.
According to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITILv3), a service has a lifecycle of five (5) phases. Service Strategy, Service Design, Service Transition, Service Operation and Continual Service Improvement. Microsoft Operations Framework (MOF 4.0) outlines a service lifecycle to include; Plan, Deliver and Operate phases and a Manage layer. I believe we can fit the e-agriculture strategies into any of these two frameworks to help determine the role of each stakeholder.
Accepted pronouncements:
- government makes policies, regulates and act as an enabler;
- government does not operate successful businesses;
- Economic growth is driven by the private sector;
- increasing wealth requires investment in research and technology;
- the broader the level of participation, the greater the possibility of success.
If all stakeholders were to ask the question raised by Emligot, "What is in it for me?" then the process of role definition even becomes more clear. Combining this with objectives such as economic/social development, viability of the agriculture industry and empowerment of stakeholders also brings into sharp focus the critical role of stakeholders in the overall process.
Here is my view of the stakeholders rolein a responsibility matrix below.
Stakeholder e-agriculture strategies phases
Formulation Implementation Evaluation
Farmer Yes Yes Yes
NGOs Yes Yes Yes
Government ICT Dept Yes Yes No
Government Agri. Dept Yes Yes No
International agencies Yes No Yes
As usual let me hear your perpectives as we continue in this knowledge sharing experience.
Submitted by zainul DR. SYED MD. ZAINUL ABEDIN on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 06:38
I appreciate the responsibility matrix.
This is a great contribution for finalizing recommendations.
This is a great contribution for finalizing recommendations.
Submitted by mawaki chango on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 17:19
It does appear obvious to me that the government wouldn't have any role to play at evaluation phase, neither in the ICT nor (more surprinsingly) in the agriculture department. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks
Submitted by Brad Clarke on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 02:17
Mawaki,
My view is based on separation of duties to eliminate conflict of interest and undue influence. The regulator should not be evaluating themselves. For transparency, an independent body or bodies should evaluate the developer and implementor. Through commissions or an autonomous established organization government would have representation but not directly or through an organization with oversight responsibility such as the ICT department.
My view is based on separation of duties to eliminate conflict of interest and undue influence. The regulator should not be evaluating themselves. For transparency, an independent body or bodies should evaluate the developer and implementor. Through commissions or an autonomous established organization government would have representation but not directly or through an organization with oversight responsibility such as the ICT department.
Submitted by mawaki chango on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 11:18
Thanks Brad for the clarification. Okay, I guess my first reading leaned more toward role than responsibility, thus the responsibility matrix is to highlight the stakeholders in charge or leading each phase. But then again, if we consider the Evaluation as being not only one of the strategy as formulated (Formulation) but also as implemented (Implementation), putting farmers as co-responsible for evaluation may raise some issues, no? (No doubt that they will be instrumental as informants for the evaluation.)
I do find the further elaboration provided by Towela below (unless it appears above after I post this) very useful. We can then further distinguish between types of role in addition to taking the lead (responsibility), e.g.: accountable, consulted, support, etc.
I do find the further elaboration provided by Towela below (unless it appears above after I post this) very useful. We can then further distinguish between types of role in addition to taking the lead (responsibility), e.g.: accountable, consulted, support, etc.
Submitted by Towela Jere on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 10:50
Building on Brad’s model and borrowing from Project Management, one could have a matrix that shows the stakeholder group, the functions (formulate, implement, evaluate) and the specific role/contribution from each stakeholder. One formulation would thus be:
e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation Formulate Implement Evaluate Farmers Consulted Responsible Informed, consulted Government ICT Department Co-lead support Informed Government Agriculture Department Lead - accountable Lead - accountable Informed INTERNATIONAL Structures/Agencies Consulted) Informed, support Informed, support Private Sector Consulted Support, responsible Informed, consulted Academia & Research Institutes Consulted Support Lead-Responsible
Some definitions are in order:
Responsible: those who do the work to achieve the task
Accountable : the one ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible.
Consulted: those whose opinions are sought
Informed: Those who are kept up-to-date on progress
Support: resources allocated to responsible. Unlike consulted, who may provide input to the task, support help complete the task.
I realise that this is still a bit raw and would need further refining.
e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation Formulate Implement Evaluate Farmers Consulted Responsible Informed, consulted Government ICT Department Co-lead support Informed Government Agriculture Department Lead - accountable Lead - accountable Informed INTERNATIONAL Structures/Agencies Consulted) Informed, support Informed, support Private Sector Consulted Support, responsible Informed, consulted Academia & Research Institutes Consulted Support Lead-Responsible
Some definitions are in order:
Responsible: those who do the work to achieve the task
Accountable : the one ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible.
Consulted: those whose opinions are sought
Informed: Those who are kept up-to-date on progress
Support: resources allocated to responsible. Unlike consulted, who may provide input to the task, support help complete the task.
I realise that this is still a bit raw and would need further refining.
Submitted by Towela Jere on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 10:49
In the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy 2012 – 2016 (MGDS II) available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12222.pdf, the following lessons from the first phase are cited as critical success factors for MGDS II:
· Successful implementation of any national development strategy requires
commitment from all stakeholders;
· A strong indicator framework is critical for measuring progress towards defined goals,
outcomes and targets;
· Availability of data is crucial for monitoring progress of MGDS implementation;
· Strengthened human and financial capacity is crucial for successful implementation of
the MGDS;
· Alignment of the national budget and sector strategies to the national development
strategy; and
· Alignment of donor support to the national development strategy.
Further, the government has developed guidelines on Sector Working Groups (“ Institutionalizing Sector Working Groups (SWGs) to Strengthen the Implementation of the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS” available at : http://www.aideffectiveness.org/media/k2/attachments/Guideline_Booklet_compressed_1.pdf ) The aim of SWGs is to provide a forum for negotiation, policy dialogue, and agreement of plans and undertakings among stakeholders at sectoral level. This is in line with the multi-stakeholder approach proposed by Ben and others.
As part of M&E, the Government of Malawi holds an MGDS Annual Review with its donor partners. My perception of this review process is that it is very donor-centric and perhaps there should be efforts to make it more “ multi-stakeholder”. (I do know that in the preparation of the MGDs, national consultations were held; I’m just not sure whether there is a national process in terms of the reviews.) The Annexe to this document has a very nice table on Sectoral Composition which identifies major stakeholder groupings (Government, Development Agencies, Civil Society , Private sector) and lists for each thematic area in the MGDS, the names of organisations that fall under these groupings. There are noticeable gaps in the private sector column and I think with more input, this could be a very useful tool.
I think too that a refined model of the SWG would help to improve the participation of farmers and non-governmentals.
commitment from all stakeholders;
· A strong indicator framework is critical for measuring progress towards defined goals,
outcomes and targets;
· Availability of data is crucial for monitoring progress of MGDS implementation;
· Strengthened human and financial capacity is crucial for successful implementation of
the MGDS;
· Alignment of the national budget and sector strategies to the national development
strategy; and
· Alignment of donor support to the national development strategy.
Further, the government has developed guidelines on Sector Working Groups (“ Institutionalizing Sector Working Groups (SWGs) to Strengthen the Implementation of the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS” available at : http://www.aideffectiveness.org/media/k2/attachments/Guideline_Booklet_compressed_1.pdf ) The aim of SWGs is to provide a forum for negotiation, policy dialogue, and agreement of plans and undertakings among stakeholders at sectoral level. This is in line with the multi-stakeholder approach proposed by Ben and others.
As part of M&E, the Government of Malawi holds an MGDS Annual Review with its donor partners. My perception of this review process is that it is very donor-centric and perhaps there should be efforts to make it more “ multi-stakeholder”. (I do know that in the preparation of the MGDs, national consultations were held; I’m just not sure whether there is a national process in terms of the reviews.) The Annexe to this document has a very nice table on Sectoral Composition which identifies major stakeholder groupings (Government, Development Agencies, Civil Society , Private sector) and lists for each thematic area in the MGDS, the names of organisations that fall under these groupings. There are noticeable gaps in the private sector column and I think with more input, this could be a very useful tool.
I think too that a refined model of the SWG would help to improve the participation of farmers and non-governmentals.
Submitted by Moses Nganwani Tia on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 14:44
FORMULATION
1.The in co-operation of the views and concerns of all Agricultural Stakeholders and other relevant actors;through the organization of Stakeholder Forums,Consulation Meetings etc.
2.The Recognition,Review and In co-operation of existing e-agricultural initiatives relevant for the formulation of a holistic e-agricultural strategy.
3.The formulation of a Non Politically inclined e-agriculture strategy in order to avoid implementation challenges.
4.The Recogniton of the need for capacity development on ICT and e-agriculture as a whole to ensure effective implementation.
IMPLEMENTATION
1.The engagement of all relevant stakeholders eg:farmers,financial institutions,produce buying companes NGO's etc. in the implementation of the activities contained in the e-agricultural strategy.
2.The implementation of Results Oriented projects and programs as contained in the e-agricultural strategy.
EVALUATION
1.The design of a strategic Evaluation Strategy to strategically Evaluate the projects as contained in the e-agriculture strategy.
2.The implementation of e- evaluation strategies to fully track the progress of activities as contained in the e-agriculture strategy.
Submitted by Moses Nganwani Tia on Tue, 03/05/2013 - 14:56
- The role of the Government ICT department will be to provide the needed technical Know How on ICT to ensure the effective formulation,implementation and evaluation of the e-agricultural strategy.
- The Goverment Agricultural Department will provide the leadership required to ensure that the e-agricultural strategy comes out with the relevant intervantions areas needed for a holsitic Agricultural development.
- The International Structures will provide the funding and other technical support needed to ensure the effective formulation,implementation and evaluation of the e-agricultural strategy.
Submitted by Justin Chisenga on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 08:08
Dear Nganwani,
Thanks for the contribution.
My question is: should funding for the formulation and implementation of the e-agricultural stategy be the responsibility of the international structures? Why do you think so?
Regards
Justin
Thanks for the contribution.
My question is: should funding for the formulation and implementation of the e-agricultural stategy be the responsibility of the international structures? Why do you think so?
Regards
Justin
Submitted by Moses Nganwani Tia on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 12:14
Dear Justin,
In my response to this particular aspect of the question, i realized that in most cases the inadequacy of funding from governments makes many innovative polices only good for the shelves and "big talk".
Therefore, i think that the international structures can assist in this direction.If not grants but at least loans that our governments will eventually pay back.
Any way thanks for the teaching you gave me on web 2.0 in Accra.I am Moses Nganwani Tia.Your Rice Value Chain blog winner.
In my response to this particular aspect of the question, i realized that in most cases the inadequacy of funding from governments makes many innovative polices only good for the shelves and "big talk".
Therefore, i think that the international structures can assist in this direction.If not grants but at least loans that our governments will eventually pay back.
Any way thanks for the teaching you gave me on web 2.0 in Accra.I am Moses Nganwani Tia.Your Rice Value Chain blog winner.
Submitted by Mary Rucibigango on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 13:36
Role of ITC is to provide the package of different ICT tools for e agriculture, while for the stakeholders is to participate in the whole proces at different levels, that is;right from the situation analysis, content development, pre-testing, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Full participation of farmers is to engange them from the beginning and to start from what they know, practical and meaningful for them.
The maini role of ICT is to provide guidelines or orientation and the technical support in terms of right tools, products, systems...etc and relevant information, for example the right and effective infrastructure needed to be in place for other machine/equipments or system to be functional.
The Ministry of Agriculture and/or Animal resources is to have the right agricultural extension information ready to be communicated through different channels, so her team working in agricultural communication/extension and knowledge management should be strong!
For International: the role is to facilitate the learning through e agricultural knowlege sharing, from different corners of the world, for change, new adoption or improvemet.
Full participation of farmers is to engange them from the beginning and to start from what they know, practical and meaningful for them.
The maini role of ICT is to provide guidelines or orientation and the technical support in terms of right tools, products, systems...etc and relevant information, for example the right and effective infrastructure needed to be in place for other machine/equipments or system to be functional.
The Ministry of Agriculture and/or Animal resources is to have the right agricultural extension information ready to be communicated through different channels, so her team working in agricultural communication/extension and knowledge management should be strong!
For International: the role is to facilitate the learning through e agricultural knowlege sharing, from different corners of the world, for change, new adoption or improvemet.
Submitted by Ken Lohento on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 15:20
Dear Mary
In the case of Rwanda, who is leading the process of ICT integration in agriculture? Is it the Ministry of Agriculture ? Do you collaborate with the Ministry of Youth and ICT on this? Have you put in place a specific institutional framework?
Thank you
Ken Lohento
In the case of Rwanda, who is leading the process of ICT integration in agriculture? Is it the Ministry of Agriculture ? Do you collaborate with the Ministry of Youth and ICT on this? Have you put in place a specific institutional framework?
Thank you
Ken Lohento
Submitted by Mary Rucibigango on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 07:13
Agriculture is one of the key areas of high priority in the Ministry of ICT and youth, so there is close collaboration of both Ministries, but also with key partners like RDB (Rwanda Development Board) and BSC (Broadcast band and System corparation). For exampme RDB is making sure that the e soko system (for e mails and mobile telephone) works better, and MINAGRI make sure that the commodities related information collection and packaging is effectvely done. The related strategies are jointly developed together.
Submitted by Stella Kamuyu on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 09:27
The Ministry of Agriculture plays a key role in ICT for Agriculture in Kenya.
Overly, they have created an enabling environment for ICT in the sector for Growth.
From the Vision 2030, the sector is recognized as key to economic development. The Ministry is anchored on the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) that acknowledges use of ICT in Agriculture. More recently, the National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy was launched and this policy has provisions for ICT in Agriculture, actually it analyses its contextual background and its current status.
The roles are complimentary between the ICT and Agric stakeholders. The ICT professionals develop the technology, deliver it and support it. They also help the stakeholders to understand what the technology means and how best to take advantage of the same.
Stakeholder roles
Stakeholders on their part provide info to the ICT pple and requests for solutions to their problems. This is what guides ICT to create solutions and to innovate new methods or processes that stakeholders can use. Farmers can participate in this process by coming together into strong associations and groupings so that they can be able to collaborate in the development of these technologies. This way they are also able to mobilize their members or the grassroots users to take advantage of these solutions (providing a platform to ensure that the technology easily reaches grassroots).
Overly, they have created an enabling environment for ICT in the sector for Growth.
From the Vision 2030, the sector is recognized as key to economic development. The Ministry is anchored on the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) that acknowledges use of ICT in Agriculture. More recently, the National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy was launched and this policy has provisions for ICT in Agriculture, actually it analyses its contextual background and its current status.
The roles are complimentary between the ICT and Agric stakeholders. The ICT professionals develop the technology, deliver it and support it. They also help the stakeholders to understand what the technology means and how best to take advantage of the same.
Stakeholder roles
Stakeholders on their part provide info to the ICT pple and requests for solutions to their problems. This is what guides ICT to create solutions and to innovate new methods or processes that stakeholders can use. Farmers can participate in this process by coming together into strong associations and groupings so that they can be able to collaborate in the development of these technologies. This way they are also able to mobilize their members or the grassroots users to take advantage of these solutions (providing a platform to ensure that the technology easily reaches grassroots).
Submitted by Towela Jere on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 10:52
I have enjoyed reading through the posts from colleagues and would just like to make a few comments:
@Ben: Fully agree with the multi-stakeholder approach. I don’t agree with letting international actors take lead in M&E to ensure neutrality; we need to own these processes and we need to develop local capacity an expertise. Relying on international partners means that we will forever be dependent.
@Brad: I like your insightful comments and I am rather curious about your positioning of government as a regulator ; if you mean government as an enforcer or policy, then I fully agree. I also agree that broader participation = success with the caveat that everyone is speaking the same language and moving in the same direction. I am also curious as to why you would remove government from the evaluation process?
@emligot: I like the example of the private sector engagement with farmers and fully agree that it is essential to get farmers buy-in and trust
@Ngwanani: do our government ICT departments have the capacity to provide technical leadership? Should they even take on this role or should they rather focus on the policy dimension?
@all: we need to be careful about this assumption that “International Agencies provide the funding?” – do we want to maintain this status quo?
Submitted by mawaki chango on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 12:18
Alas funding sources being foreign seems to be the "new" normal for so many people in Africa --and maybe in the whole developing world? As we think about those challenges, we should do so with the constraint to create as much as possible self-sustaining economies not only based on domestic production but also based on trade and foreign investments -- but foreign aid is not foreign investment, or it is a hidden, perverted one made in some cases by some foreign governments to create markets for their private sectors. No one can be self-sufficient in the sense of producing all they need, but at least they can build a self-sustaining economy by striving to reach the appropriate levels of domestic production and consumption, export, import, domestic entrepreneurship and foreign investments. As far as I'm concerned, those are the main variables that drive development. I realize that many countries in the developing world are mismanaged, or their state building process was not even a viable one to begin with, and as a result the state/government may need budgetary support (in the hope that such situation is not structural but transitory). It then becomes even more crucial that those governments seek to unleash the ingenuity and productivity of their people by creating the right incentives and stretegies and frameworks (without the government spending a lot of money trying to become an economic entrepreneur or producer itself).
Every now and then I hear about African university students or professors going on a strike in order to improve their working conditions, etc. Maybe if we give enough thought into organizing universities so that in addition to being "intellectual developpers" they also are fully involved as economic actors, we might avoid having to wait for international agencies for some tasks. Why units could not be formed in our academias to play a more neutral role of providing providing assessment and evaluation services for our governments' policies as well as helping governments upfront to make evidence-based policies? And be even paid for that through research grants, etc.? And give the opportunity to qualified students to design and undertake research projects that address their countries' problems, with some assurance that their results will be consiered (maybe challenged but still considered) in related decisions that are made for the country-- as opposed to having their works be even more accessible to their colleagues in the "North" than to their national peers?
Well, I started this message with the above subject line, thinking to myself that sounds too grand for the 3 or 4 line observation I had in mind; that sounds like a book title. But let me stop here before it becomes one. I'm not sure whether this message can be ascribed to the discussion facilitator. Whatever the case, I am Mawaki Chango and I approve this message :)
Submitted by Makane Faye on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 14:15
Hi All,
It looks a very rich list of roles already identified. Just to add on what is proposed. As it was noted earlier, the e-agri strategies formulation and implementation process is a multi-stakeholder undertaking. That is why multistakeholder consultation is important in the e-strategies development process to ensure right from the beginning the participation and take of the various stakeholders. As it was rightly indicated, the role of Government is of paramount importance through its policy making mechanisms and has the primary responsibility in the development of forward-looking policy and legislation related to ICTs, recognizing that they have the capacity to spur growth, to create vast amounts of employment, and to attract investment, both local and foreign. In this regard, each country should develop a vision to guide development of the e-agriculture. Government considers development and adoption of Vision statements as the first steps in materializing government commitment to the e-strategy development process and adoption of ICTs. It creates the institutional framework (lead agency) to coordinate and implement the e-strategy. It creates the enabling environment in terms of legal and regulatory and other incentives for the growth of e-agri sector through participation by the private sector, other international partners and non-state actors. There are therefore a range of roles that we can list for each of the stakeholders including the private sector (e.g. application development, capacity building, research, etc.), research and academic institutions (e.g. training, research, content, etc.), government agri departments (e.g. building and maintaining national agri info system and network, etc.), etc.
It is here that the e-agri strategy is so important to clearly define the roles and strategic visions in all aspects.
Thanks
Abebe Chekol
Submitted by saskia harmsen on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 14:24
Dear all,
Apologies for contributing so late day in the discussions. Contributing to this question about the role of different stakeholders, I believe IICD's past experience with formulating the ICT for Agriculture strategy in Bolivia can be informative. Although the experience is slightly dated (2007), the process was a very interesting one, and the process experience was evaluated by various stakeholders and documented for us to draw from in this current work.
The initiative to develop an ICT policy for the agriculture sector was a result of the ICT Roundtable for the agricultural sector in July 2002, organized by the IICD with the participation of key stakeholders from civil society and the government. The development of an ICT policy and strategic framework was seen as a requirement to ensure appropriate implementation of ICT in the agricultural sector, particularly when aiming at an impact on the lower-income agricultural producers in isolated rural areas.
Related to the process of formulation of the Estrategia TIC Agropecuario (ETICA), the Ministry of Agriculture indicated in its initial ETICA plan that it had the intention to: ‘Elaborate and implement an ICT policy and strategy developed with and validated by key stakeholders from civil society and the private sector. The Ministry has taken upon a process that aimed at the institutionalization of ICT in a systematic and participative way and based on consensus between the public sector and the civil society and the private sector.’ To achieve this objective the Ministry a National Coordination Committee was set up with the task to plan, execute and evaluate the process of formulation of the strategy under the supervision of the Minister of Agrciulture. The Committee included:
Key steps formulation process ETICA:
Jul 02 Start project team
Aug 02 Reference report ICT in agriculture
Aug 02 Installation National Coordination Committee
Aug 02-Jun 03 Start publication monthly newsletter
Sep 02 Introduction workshop with government officials and key actors
Sep 02 - Mar 03 Awareness and capacity development program for government representatives
Oct-Nov 02 Elaboration of the draft policy
Jan 03 Validation workshops at regional (department) level
---------------------------------------
The document which this is drawn from was an internal document, but I can make it available to inform these debates. Hope it is useful for our collective goal!
Apologies for contributing so late day in the discussions. Contributing to this question about the role of different stakeholders, I believe IICD's past experience with formulating the ICT for Agriculture strategy in Bolivia can be informative. Although the experience is slightly dated (2007), the process was a very interesting one, and the process experience was evaluated by various stakeholders and documented for us to draw from in this current work.
The initiative to develop an ICT policy for the agriculture sector was a result of the ICT Roundtable for the agricultural sector in July 2002, organized by the IICD with the participation of key stakeholders from civil society and the government. The development of an ICT policy and strategic framework was seen as a requirement to ensure appropriate implementation of ICT in the agricultural sector, particularly when aiming at an impact on the lower-income agricultural producers in isolated rural areas.
Related to the process of formulation of the Estrategia TIC Agropecuario (ETICA), the Ministry of Agriculture indicated in its initial ETICA plan that it had the intention to: ‘Elaborate and implement an ICT policy and strategy developed with and validated by key stakeholders from civil society and the private sector. The Ministry has taken upon a process that aimed at the institutionalization of ICT in a systematic and participative way and based on consensus between the public sector and the civil society and the private sector.’ To achieve this objective the Ministry a National Coordination Committee was set up with the task to plan, execute and evaluate the process of formulation of the strategy under the supervision of the Minister of Agrciulture. The Committee included:
- Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture
- Representatives of other public entities including the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (CEPROBOL).
- Representatives of grass-roots organizations AOPEB and CIOEC with experience in ICT for agriculture programs.
- Representatives of NGOs APCOB, CIPCA, ACLO, CARE with experience in ICT for agriculture programs.
Key steps formulation process ETICA:
Jul 02 Start project team
Aug 02 Reference report ICT in agriculture
Aug 02 Installation National Coordination Committee
Aug 02-Jun 03 Start publication monthly newsletter
Sep 02 Introduction workshop with government officials and key actors
Sep 02 - Mar 03 Awareness and capacity development program for government representatives
Oct-Nov 02 Elaboration of the draft policy
Jan 03 Validation workshops at regional (department) level
---------------------------------------
The document which this is drawn from was an internal document, but I can make it available to inform these debates. Hope it is useful for our collective goal!
Submitted by saskia harmsen on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 14:26
(from the evaluation document)
The participants agreed that the strategy had an active participation of the different key actors of the sector. The government representatives at national and department level made up the majority of participants (55%), plus an additional group of government representatives of other related government institutions. Within the group of the government, the majority represent technical positions in the government.
The civil society, the private sector and academic sector had a smaller participation. Participants from these sectors were chosen on the basis of their on-the-ground experience and the knowledge in the use and application of ICT in the agricultural sector in Bolivia. Although the experience of actors in the process is recognized, the limited participation of the producers themselves is indicated as a clear weakness of the process.
The majority (85%) of the participants were involved in workshops and focus groups organized during the process. A small group of 15 persons participated in preparing and writing the actual policy document. Most participants indicate that the process has been transparent and that their opinions were being valued and taken into account in the actual policy documents. They have been able to participate in the formulation of the vision and goals of ETICA as well as in the taking decisions around the policy process. The participants mentioned contributions to the focus and methodological procedures. Furthermore, they have been able to bring experience and knowledge on the characteristics of the sector and the needs of the beneficiaries to the process particularly at local and rural levels. The larger part had experience with policy formulation processes before, which informs us on their judgments around the quality of the ETICA process. 70% of the participants wanted to participate more in the process. Part of these persons were not able to do so due to other obligations or cost related limitations. Still, around 70% indicates to have received insufficient information, received information late or not at all. The information exchange is clearly a point to improve in future processes.
Learning points on the part of participants
Participants joined the process for various reasons. Most important reasons included the representation of interests of the professional area each participant represent and the interest to participate in future implementation of ETICA. Learning about ICT and the formulation of public policies represent a second important objective for the participants. In general, 20% of the participants have reached their objectives fully, while 70% has partially met the objectives.
Consulted on learning aspects, they state that their participation allowed them to learn about policy formulation (65%) and related issues such as policy participation, reaching agreement and lobbying in policy processes. Another learning area was related to the understanding of the potential contribution of ICT to development (50%) and knowledge about the needs of beneficiary groups. This motivated them to integrate ICT better into their professional activities.
The participants agreed that the strategy had an active participation of the different key actors of the sector. The government representatives at national and department level made up the majority of participants (55%), plus an additional group of government representatives of other related government institutions. Within the group of the government, the majority represent technical positions in the government.
The civil society, the private sector and academic sector had a smaller participation. Participants from these sectors were chosen on the basis of their on-the-ground experience and the knowledge in the use and application of ICT in the agricultural sector in Bolivia. Although the experience of actors in the process is recognized, the limited participation of the producers themselves is indicated as a clear weakness of the process.
The majority (85%) of the participants were involved in workshops and focus groups organized during the process. A small group of 15 persons participated in preparing and writing the actual policy document. Most participants indicate that the process has been transparent and that their opinions were being valued and taken into account in the actual policy documents. They have been able to participate in the formulation of the vision and goals of ETICA as well as in the taking decisions around the policy process. The participants mentioned contributions to the focus and methodological procedures. Furthermore, they have been able to bring experience and knowledge on the characteristics of the sector and the needs of the beneficiaries to the process particularly at local and rural levels. The larger part had experience with policy formulation processes before, which informs us on their judgments around the quality of the ETICA process. 70% of the participants wanted to participate more in the process. Part of these persons were not able to do so due to other obligations or cost related limitations. Still, around 70% indicates to have received insufficient information, received information late or not at all. The information exchange is clearly a point to improve in future processes.
Learning points on the part of participants
Participants joined the process for various reasons. Most important reasons included the representation of interests of the professional area each participant represent and the interest to participate in future implementation of ETICA. Learning about ICT and the formulation of public policies represent a second important objective for the participants. In general, 20% of the participants have reached their objectives fully, while 70% has partially met the objectives.
Consulted on learning aspects, they state that their participation allowed them to learn about policy formulation (65%) and related issues such as policy participation, reaching agreement and lobbying in policy processes. Another learning area was related to the understanding of the potential contribution of ICT to development (50%) and knowledge about the needs of beneficiary groups. This motivated them to integrate ICT better into their professional activities.