Question 3: What should be the role of the public sector in supporting producer organizations' uptake of 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]
The losses incurred in developing countries are largely due to infrastructural constraints related to poor transport, storage, processing and packaging facilities, in addition to capacity gaps that result in inefficient production, harvesting, processing and transport of food.
There should be strong government commitment and support for ICT development in the form of policy incentives, increasing levels of investment in ICT R&D projects, accelerated investment in ICT infrastructure and telecommunication facilities, increase manpower development and skills training in ICT.
Public sectors should support ICT to:
(1) Reinforce producers in achieving economic, social and ecological sustainability to increase productivity and improve quality;
(2) Support better terms of trade and organize access to financial services;
(3) Develop a range of instruments for training, quality management financing, exchange of experience, management, efficiency and sales;
(4) Increase services used by farmers and other producers;
(5) Link farmers with public support agencies and private sector buyers;
(6) Encourage creation of producer organizations to procure high-quality inputs in bulk to reduce costs;
(7) Enhance logistics - public distribution of commodities;
(8) Use producer organizations to establish marketing partnerships with processors and retailers to promote socially beneficial products and create brands;
(9) Create provisions for credit in conjunction public and private sector lender;
(10) Enhance public R&D and production to develop socially beneficial inputs to production
(11) Enhance extension services or technical assistance to producers in farming practices (training, information dissemination)
(12) Promote infrastructure development (public infrastructure - roads, storage facilities);
(13) Promote public distribution of commodities - partnerships between public sector and producer groups/NGOs to jointly finance and maintain roads, storage facilities;
(14) Enhance information services development of MIS to integrate government statistics agencies with private producer associations, use of IT to distribute market information;
(15) Develop and enforce public standards and regulations on food safety inspection and monitoring to manage quality and food safety in conjunction with government and producer groups;
(16) Develop coordination mechanisms to ensure healthy competition and market exchanges.
I think that Fatima has covered most of the points, so I would like to go at this from a different perspective. As you may have noticed from my other posts, my focus has been on eductaion and empowerment (the two go hand-in-hand).
I think that the primarly role of governement should be in providing basic infrastructure (roads, rail, water, IT infrasturcuture) and a legal and commercial system for producers to thrive in. Beyond start up grants government should NOT be involved. Frankly speaking, I believe that the whoel purpose of this exercise is to help to nuture independent self-sustaning producer groups. Regular involvement of the government presents many pitfalls on the route to this goal; corruption, dependency, lack of respect for local knowledge, to name a few.
I am pessimistic that a sudden spike in governement interest will be sustained enough to have the long term impact that the farmers need. I beleive that this expertise and assistance will need top come from NGOs, NPOs and the local communities. Government assistance is too prone to shift with the political winds.
Regards,
peter
Hi Fatima! Hello Peter! Your discussion on the public role is indeed very interesting, that it warranted my attention. Seemingly this leaves just a tiny open space for contribution. Anyway, I simply would like to emphasize the role of partnership not just between and among the public sector but with the private sector as well. PPP is a very important concept to tackle at this point in time. This opinion will also somehow touches on the role of the government that being prone to corruption, dependency and lack of respect for local- as Peter puts it. The public (inclusive of the government) and the private sectors both have to form partnership and work hand in hand for improving producers’ production capacity, access and delivery or marketing, etc. Taking a closer look and learning from our African friends, the innovative project design through an e-government PPPs in Ghana shows how a joint venture between government revenue agencies and a private sector partner proved advantageous on both sides.
The e-Ghana Project (FY07-FY12, IDA) has an innovative design featuring a public-private partnership (PPP) to transform revenue collection, using a joint venture between Government revenue agencies and a private sector partner. The project has helped the Government attract US$40 million in private sector investment for developing and deploying an electronic tax application to automate revenue agencies and the Registrar General's Department. Upon completion, this application is expected to help the Government increase compliance and transparency, and broaden the tax base, while reducing the incidence of fraud, upgrading Government employee skills, and developing a template for upgrading other agencies. (cf. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/0,,contentMDK:20687836~menuPK:282840~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:282823,00.html)
Dear Dolores,
I concur with your observation on the role of the private sector in tackling societal problems, notwithstanding ICT in agricultural sector. The private sector had been in the past a good partner of the government and other private sector groups in solving problems and addressing concerns.
However, I limited my response below to public sector involvement as that what the question warrants.
Regards,
Andy
I agree with you too, Dolores and Fernando. Like for instance, tapping the support of the telecom/ICT companies to get involved (perhaps through sponsorships and trainings). This way, we are shooting many birds in one stone like advertising their products and at the same time getting the farmers be trained on ICT and eventually, farmers going through networking with product organizations and other stakeholders.
Hi Dolly!
Yes indeed! Public-private partnerships in the Philippines is starting to take off, as the private sector is tapped to partner with the government, esp. in infrastructure projects like the building.improvement of the roads in the rural areas, making the transport of goods from the farm to the market more accessible and easy both for the producers and consumers. If the delivery of goods and services are facilitated by the government, it would also follow that the costs for the produce would not be sold at higher prices.
What I'm trying to say is, if projects such as infrastructure, ICT or the delivery of services, when it is collaborated by the government and private sector, can go a long way and reach even the least serviced group of people.
There are many ways that that public and private partnership can foster, but it won't either hurt to involve other sectors such as NGOs, academe, and the community to get involved either as recipients or volunteers, in the development process, all of which entails enhancement of skills through training, education (both formal and non-formal) and other forms of assistance.
Peter,
I don't want to sound like a complete skeptic but I'm not convinced that all governments are interested in promoting self-reliant and independent rural cooperatives and producer organizations . Many governments in developing countries seem more obsessed with control and submission. In other words there is a political dimension to the broad based diffusion of ICT in rural areas that nobody has yet touched upon .Some governments find broad based rural participation in decision making a threat.They prefer top-down forms of management
John
John
I entirely agree with you; that is why it is important to suggest government to work at the same time on IC instruments and vehicles as well as the legal framework to allow meeting and free communication between producers in and out of the country.
In some countries, producer organizations have no right to have a radio.
Pierre
Hi John,
Thank you for your comment which I seemed to have missed (not having a quick thread sort options makes it a biot confusing to keep track of posts at times) .
I don't want to sound like a complete skeptic but I'm not convinced that all governments are interested in promoting self-reliant and independent rural cooperatives and producer organizations . Many governments in developing countries seem more obsessed with control and submission.
We seem to be in agreement, as I posted above:
I am pessimistic that a sudden spike in governement interest will be sustained enough to have the long term impact that the farmers need. I beleive that this expertise and assistance will need top come from NGOs, NPOs and the local communities. Government assistance is too prone to shift with the political winds.
My following posts aslo show my skepticism in government action.
Cheers
Peter
Marie-Helene
Let me speak for the small time farmers. They are generally dependent on producer organizations, so they need all the help they can get outside, and that includes the public sector. The latter can help them reach wider markets through various ICT channels such as websites, forums, geocaching, and social media. At first the public can do this, but once the ICT infrastructure of the PO has been set up they can work hand-in-hand.
Regards,
Harv
I agree, Harv! As these farmers only need the driving force to be efficient in their work. The support through ICT, infrastructures, trainings, etc. could be well welcomed provided that they would be supplied with the much assistance that they need in order to sustain the projects designed for them and for the agriculture.
Kelly
Hi, Fatima!
Your recommendations are good inputs for lawmakers especially to those under the agriculture and food committee of the lower house and of the senate. Though I think some of those are enacted already into laws though we have problems in the implementation stage. We also need to increase the will power to support endeavors that will benefit this agriculture sector.
Kelly
The losses incurred in developing countries are largely due to infrastructural constraints related to poor transport, storage, processing and packaging facilities, in addition to capacity gaps that result in inefficient production, harvesting, processing and transport of food.
These are standard value chain functions. Value chain mapping and identification has been touted as the panacea to all sorts of sustainable development models/perspectives in agriculture. Our experience is that there is need for a physical space to support the introduction of a facility that would engage with actors at commodity or service provision level to address these issues. Where investment is needed, the organizational framework needs to be considered keenly. Read by earlier post
There should be strong government commitment and support for ICT development in the form of policy incentives, increasing levels of investment in ICT R&D projects, accelerated investment in ICT infrastructure and telecommunication facilities, increase manpower development and skills training in ICT.
Most developing countries lack the financial wherewithal to support basic necessities. On a priotized ranking, ICT will come very low. The challenge is not to expect much from the government but p[ropose a PPP that supports the infusion of what the government can supply with what the communities are able to do on their own including mobilizing investment.
Public sectors should support ICT to:
I would propose that these functions be dealt by PPPs rather than the Public Sector (Government) with the government playing the role that they can be encouraged to play with the most critical being the provision of infrastructure or to link with global partners such as ITU on issues of telecommunication.
(1) Reinforce producers in achieving economic, social and ecological sustainability to increase productivity and improve quality;
Policies on quality standards need to be introduced through focused extension support through industrial, academic, productive, agronomical, social frameworks
(2) Support better terms of trade and organize access to financial services;
Vibrant financial sector with government setting up such funds as can promote affordable credit for smallholders and other producers
(3) Develop a range of instruments for training, quality management financing, exchange of experience, management, efficiency and sales;
Action research initiatives that integrate the community and private sector need to provide the handles for this. There is a risk here of making the government swallow more than it can chew!
(4) Increase services used by farmers and other producers;
Action research initiatives that integrate the community and private sector need to provide the handles for this. There is a risk here of making the government swallow more than it can chew!
(5) Link farmers with public support agencies and private sector buyers;
Action research initiatives that integrate the community and private sector need to provide the handles for this. There is a risk here of making the government swallow more than it can chew!
(6) Encourage creation of producer organizations to procure high-quality inputs in bulk to reduce costs;
Civil society and creation of farmer organizations through capacity building of farmers themselves to create this rather than the government doing it
(7) Enhance logistics - public distribution of commodities;
Private sector or farmer organizations’ responsibility
(8) Use producer organizations to establish marketing partnerships with processors and retailers to promote socially beneficial products and create brands;
Farmer organizations themselves backed by private sector or PPP initiatives
(9) Create provisions for credit in conjunction public and private sector lender;
Savings and Credit Cooperatives do a very good job here, let the farmers do it themselves. You risk creating dependency that will be hurtful in the long run
(10) Enhance public R&D and production to develop socially beneficial inputs to production
R&D in agriculture is indeed a public good and the learning and research organizations need to be supported but they should also try and limit over-reliance on governments. Global funds now exist that promote innovation, let the R&D initiatives sell their innovation for supportive initiatives
(11) Enhance extension services or technical assistance to producers in farming practices (training, information dissemination)
This should be participatory as much as possible and be result oriented. Too much free extension has been the cause of slow adoption of technologies and new approaches to value chain engagement
(12) Promote infrastructure development (public infrastructure - roads, storage facilities);
Purely government’s yes but storage is private sector business…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(13) Promote public distribution of commodities - partnerships between public sector and producer groups/NGOs to jointly finance and maintain roads, storage facilities;
Purely private sector business…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(14) Enhance information services development of MIS to integrate government statistics agencies with private producer associations, use of IT to distribute market information;
Purely private sector business…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(15) Develop and enforce public standards and regulations on food safety inspection and monitoring to manage quality and food safety in conjunction with government and producer groups;
Purely government through a responsive standards body with the production infrastructure being private sector/Producer organization owned…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(16) Develop coordination mechanisms to ensure healthy competition and market exchanges.
Let the government meddle in what should be purely market forces….there may be exceptions depending on how organized the markets are
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:00 AM, <[email protected]> wro
In the case of Tanzania, they consider it as the main pillar in agriculture sector, as it is its national priority sector, and they give high regards in the development of knowledge to generally improve food production and its logistics.
In the Philippines, Senator Ernesto Angara called to develop ICT applications in agriculture, as he said, "We need more of these innovative, ICT-driven and highly collaborative initiatives for our agricultural sector to boom," he added. Taken from news:
Angara said the Congressional Commission on Science, Technology and Engineering (COMSTE), which he also chairs, has lobbied for the deployment of an innovation cluster—a public-private partnership (PPP) in S&T—on precision farming and smart agriculture.
Some P90 million of the 2012 national budget is pending release from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for this project.
“It is only through the synergy of these players can we provide meaningful technical support and extension services to our farmers,” he said
Allocating appropriate budget in the agriculture sector is always a priority, more so to increase its productivity with ICT in order to “increase its crop yields and make them more disaster-resilient, especially amid the growing population and an erratic climate”, Angara stressed.
There are exemplary practices outside the country in the developing the agriculture industry but as Flor says, “Development policies should not be imposed from the outside but conceptualized and formulated from the inside. No country has the right to dictate upon another country its “terms” for development. “
Readings from:
http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/ictsandnationalagriculturalresearchsystems.pdf
Kelly
The public sector can effectively and efficiently carry out certain functions in supporting poducer organizations' uptake of ICT. First, it can provide Extension. Extension is a nonformal educational function that disseminates information and advice with the intention of promoting knowledge, attitudes, skills amd aspirations. Extension is the transfer and exchange of practical information. Second, the public sector can also help the PO by contracting with private sector organizations to provide ICT services necessary for an integrated approach to agricultural education, research and extension. Third, the public sector can also help the PO in its capacity building as it requires funding to widen and ensure strong links with and modernization of the various componens of the formal and non-formal agricultural education on ICT. Fourth, the public sector can also tap the help of various media to assist the agricultural producers with information and advice as to agricultural innovations, market prices, pest infestations and weather alerts. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5061E/y5061e06.htm
I agree with Peter and Koy that the Civil Society Organization (NGOs/POs), Private Sector as well as the media should be tapped in the provision, information and education of farmers on ICT. With the limited government resources (sometimes no sound planning and budgeting at that) extension workers can not be adequately provided. Most of agricultural municipalities (4th to 6th class) covering more than 30 barangays/villages have only 4 or less agricultural extension workers. Budget for traveling expenses are not also well provided as well as capacity development of agricultural technologists.
Private Sectors or the business sectors can also play a vital role in the provision of ICT facilities which the government could not afford. Media can air out agricultural technology updates to farmers.
Information to farmers can be dessiminated through sms at lower cost which I am sure is within the budget range of the government.
Hi Koy,
i just wanted to add, if this is possible, for the extension program you mentioned, that since the government introduced to the education section (in high school and elementary levels) the adoption of XO laptops, and the teachers were trained on the use of this new technology that is to be adopted in schools, why not do the same in the agricultural industry as part of the extension program?
The provision of XO laptops to selected school children is a product of a public and private partneship in the promotion of ICT education in schools.
I'm just wondering if this could also be possible for adult classes, specifically, members of the producer organizations? Sure, it would entail a lot of effort to teach/introduce ICT to farmers, as the saying goes, "it is not impossible to acquire learning when the mind and spirit are open to learning new things".
Hello Sansu, We have to check on that. While this subnotebook computer is distributed to provide the children with access to knowledge, opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves, the design of the XO Laptop intentionally omits all motor-driven moving parts; it has no hard-drive and instead use flash memory and come with a distribution of Linux. Perhaps, the public-private partnership can facilitate and coordinate considering that its upgrade process is easy especially if you upgrade off a USB memory stick. The producer organizations can upgrade as a group. The content can also be expanded and by covering the basics, the PO can show what can be done to help the farmers learn even when they are offline. There are also User Guides and complete XO manuals to show new users the XO's tricks. It is also self-powered equipment as its power options include batteries, solar power panels, and human-powered generators which is very handy to the PO and the farmers.
Ms Koy,
I agree with you, but if the XO computers can be tailored fit to the school age children, perhaps, this can be done also for farmers in the producer organizations. As I have mentioned in previous posts, technology or any other ICT can be simplified/modified according to the target users' need and purpose.
Hi Sansu,
The XO laptops are designed and targeted for children so I don't think OLPC will allow these to be given to farmers. Besides, at around $150+ each, it might be better to give them cellphones or ebook readers. By the way, private organizations were the ones who brought the OLPC laptops to the Philippines, the DepED only supported it.
Regards,
Harv
Hi Harv,
yes, it's true that the XO laptops were designed for children, and thanks to OLPC for their generous deed, and the DepEd is one of lucky goernment agencies to receive such generosity, but if there has not been a collaboration with the DepEd (say, in vocing out the needs of the school children particularly in terms of ICT), and OLPC heard such call and responded with generosity, then, these school children beneficiaries would have not been enjoying what they have on their hands right now.
It is in the same line of thinking that ICT can work for farmers, like what you said, mobile phones for farmers. Perhaps, if producer organizations and other groups would help POs to be "heard", perhaps, a generous private sector would be kind enough to provided the POs with mobile phones especially designed for farmers/POs. And such mobile phones need not be as pricey as the XO laptops.
This is an interesting discussion, showing there can be a role for government to facilitate PO's access to ICT. In the case described it seems the XO - a tool like a mobile phone - was provided free or at a very low cost as a result of the government's action.
In terms of sustainability, is this sufficient? What about the capacity to use, or the costs of use?
Hi Michael,
Actually the XOs are laptops, and selected schools are lucky recipients of these devices (for free!). As for sustainability in the Philippines, the first deployment in Lubang (Dec 2010, initiated by the mayor) is still going smooth because of the support of the government. In fact, it was expanded to the whole region of Occidental Mindoro (Nov 2011, initiated by the governor). Given proper training, all stakeholders (students, teachers, administrators) can incorporate the laptops in their daily activities. As for the costs, you will just need a basic computer for the server and internet access, plus the training. The school can get these for free if there are NGOs helping. Recently, there is a private company that has started to deploy XOs, and they provide free training (through eKindling, volunteer org) and connectivity (through Smart, private telco).
Harv
Hi Michael and Harv,
this afternoon, we had the opportunity to listen to Mayor Juan Sanchez's presentation of their best practice exemplifying public and private partnership in Lubang, Occidental Mindoro, and he mentioned this XO laptops. One of the key factors that this project has attained popularity in other areas is that, the initiatives of the local government for the upliftment of the lives of their people, making this partnership a replicable practice in other areas.
Another mayor mentioned a strategy of setting up an MDG fund, if not the local development fund, to support such initiatives. This act could very well support the needs of the farmers or Producer orgranizations in terms of providing them mobile phones that are designed according to their needs.
I remember an article in the internet that mobile phones used by military personnel do not have as much features as other smart phones, but features which are only useful to their needs.
THis same principle can be applied to mobile phones specifically designed for farmers and producer organizations, if only some telecomms are open to engage in designing and producing sector-specific mobile phones.
I agree with you, but if the XO computers can be tailored fit to the school age children, perhaps, this can be done also for farmers in the producer organizations. As I have mentioned in previous posts, technology or any other ICT can be simplified/modified according to the target users' need and purpose.
just
--- On Tue, 11/20/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [e-Agriculture] Question 3 (opens 19 Nov.)
To: "sansu" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 3:00 PM
Last year, the Global Information Technology Report (GITR) series celebrated its 10th anniversary. The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with INSEAD, initially
began this project to explore the impact of information and communication technologies (ICT) on productivity and development as a component of the Forum’s
research on competitiveness. To this end, over the past decade the Networked Readiness Index (NRI) has been measuring the degree to which economies across
the world leverage ICT for enhanced competitiveness.
During this period, it has been helping policymakers and relevant stakeholders to track their economies’ strengths and weaknesses as well as their progress over time. In addition, it has identified best practices in networked readiness and designed roadmaps and strategies for establishing optimal ICT diffusion to boost competiveness.
Since 2002, the networked readiness framework has remained stable, aside from some minor adjustments at the variable level to better reflect the dynamic
trends in the technology landscape. This has allowed for meaningful comparisons across time and created a valuable database of technology metrics. However, the
ICT industry has changed dramatically since 2002 and its effects are increasingly transforming our economies and societies.
More precisely, over the past decade, the world has become increasingly “hyperconnected.” We live in an environment where the Internet and its associated
services are accessible and immediate, where people and businesses can communicate with each other instantly, and where machines are equally interconnected with each other. The exponential growth of mobile devices, big data, and social media are all drivers of this process of hyperconnectivity. Consequently, we are beginning to see fundamental transformations in society.
Hyperconnectivity is redefining relationships between individuals, consumers and enterprises, and citizens and the state. It is introducing new opportunities to increase productivity and well-being by redefining the way business is done, generating new products and services, and improving the way public services are delivered.
However, hyperconnectivity can also bring about new challenges and risks in terms of security, cybercrime, privacy, the flow of personal data, individual rights, and
access to information.
Traditional organizations and industry infrastructures are also facing challenges as industries converge. This will inevitably have consequences for policy and regulation because regulators will have to mediate the blurring lines between sectors and industries, and will be obligated to oversee more facets of each interaction in
a pervasive way. For example, in terms of security and surveillance, hyperconnectivity is transforming the way people, objects, and even animals are being monitored. Experts also predict it will have an impact on inventory, transport and fleet management, wireless payments, navigation tools, and so on. The impact of ICT on different facets of life and work is growing.
In this context, the way we monitor, measure, and benchmark the deployment and impacts of ICT must evolve to take into account the rapid changes and consequences of living in a hyperconnected world.
Reflecting on this imperative of adaptation, a comprehensive review process of the NRI framework has been undertaken, guided by a process of high-level consultations with academic experts, policymakers, and representatives of the ICT industry. The results of this new framework are presented for the first time in this edition of the Report.
Dear all, welcome to the second and final week of this discussion. It is great to see that we are off to a strong start.
Please keep in mind that the questions this week (#3 and #4) are very focused. They are designed to highlight issues that the World Bank and FAO believe are critical when producer organizations use ICT.
Question 3 here covers three points – public sector support (not necessarily limited to funding), producer organizations, the uptake of ICT by producer organizations. Please draw all three of these points together in your responses. [We are not looking for a discussion on agricultural or ICT-related policy issues in general.]
Cheers, Michael
The public sector should be committed to support ICT investments in order to deliver maximum value for money. The public sector should be prompt in finding opportunities to capture various benefits in enhancing access and improvement in the quality and value of services it may provide producer organizations on a national, regional and local basis.
Shared ICT platforms, a connection and spread of exemplar projects and enhanced engagement with the industry would reduce the proportion of cost invested in ICT by individual organizations and deliver local savings which might be partially reinvested in advancing the progress of ICT. It would also open the door to significant additional and wider savings in public sector costs by providing a platform for the operation of other shared services and better support sustainability goals.
The public sector should recognize that in the current economic environment a largely standalone and "self-sufficient" operating mode is no longer affordable and should commit to an era of sharing in ICT that will not only offer better value but also still meet the needs of individual producer organizations and their customers.
The role of the public sector in supporting organization’s uptake on ICT should be on the provision on public goods and services that cannot be done by the producer organization but are important in creating an environment where ICT can successfully be operated.
First is on Research, Development and Extension. The public sector should be well informed and should have a good grasp on the needs of the producer organizations as to ICT development and management. Not all areas where producer organizations are located have the same environment and levels in terms of progress and development. R & D should always be followed by extension where the public organizations shall be capacitated and educated on ICT and the salient areas of ICT to make it succeed ICT should not be looked at as luxury but a necessity). The public sector may not necessarily provide all the inputs in making ICT work but focus on making the POs be able to implement and manage an operational ICT system.
Second, the public sector should look into existing policies or formulate policies that can create an environment where the POs are able to develop and operate a workable ICT. (e.g. some areas, particularly in the rural areas, have no internet connection or communication service provider). Example will be policies to encourage investments in ICTs, or policies to make ICT development and operation be affordable.
Third, the public sector should look into the infrastructure support (like farm-to-market roads, training and resource centers among others) that are important in encouraging investments on ICT development (e.g. communication ompanies to invest in the areas for communication relay towers, etc). Note that communication companies invest only based on how feasible and viable their investments are (costs can be recouped in a reasonable time or profit can be assured) and they are always considering the question of accessibility and availability of support service centers.
Fourth, it may not be in the long term but for the short term, the public sector should at least lead in the installation of ICT sytems by providing subsidies in classified poor areas classified where most of the people are also poor and may not have the capability to make direct investments in ICT structures and services. Another strategy will be for the public sector to be the one to establish a rural ICT center to provide the necessary ICT-related services.
The public sector has a very important role to play in supporting producer organizations. Among these include partnership with the private sector or engage in public-private partnership in the delivery of ICT services and infrastructure to the countryside to enable farmers and other rural folks to have access to the technology to which they are introduced.
Since the acquiring and setting up of ICT equipments and its accompanying infrastructure can be costly to the producer organizations, partnering with the private sector could reduce this cost. The private sector, through their corporate social responsibility, could assume some of the costs being shouldered by the government or public sector and the producer organizations.
Or the private sector could help develop localized/simplified programs needed to run/operate the ICT equipment(s).
The public or government sector can also provide support to producer organizations through policies that would strengthen ICT skills and capacity building, non-formal education, or creating a suitable environment for the adoption of ICT in the agricultural industry. =
The public sector is a major stakeholder in producer organizations. Apart from paying taxes, producer organizations (POs) play a major role in alleviating the plight of the rural poor and vulnerable groups like subsistence farmers.
The public sector should therefore be at the forefront in supporting the producer organizations. There are four areas that I believe stand out especially in East Africa; the issue of infrastructure, legislation, access to capital, and information.
Infrastructure: sometimes there are areas that have producer organizations that cannot use the ICT that they have like mobile phones due to lack of booster masts that can strengthen the signals. The public sector can offer subsidies to ICT providers. It is a fact that communication and good communication at that is an integral part of these organizations.
Legislation: this could mean the removal of Value Added Tax (VAT) from the purchase of equipment that’s used by these POs
Access to information: this means information from international, national and regional organizations that would greatly improve the way these POs carry out their day-to-day business
Access to capital: this would help the POs in their initial start-up capital, or where clients do not pay on delivery, which raises the problem of lack of capital which stifles these groups.
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/rural-institutions-and-producer-organizations-imperfect-mar
Anne
I believe you are answering the question as it is important to find out what should the government do to help producer organization better use ICT.
Government are in charge of roads and public infrastructure. Should Governments invest massively in ICT infrastructure? If yes which one? Radion? cable? wifi?? others I do not know ?? What kind on ICT infrastructure should the government invest in for producer organization to use ICT for the development of their members??
You also mention legal. This is also very important. Legislation should exist and allow producer organization to have radio, newspaper, to produce films for TV etc.
Cell phone exist because of license given or sold by Government to private entreprises. How can government intervene for cell phone communication to be affordable etc... How to organise competition among cell providers for them to serve rural areas where population density is few ??
You also very rightly mention access to information. Producer organization should be able to connect between themselves through social networks or other form of connection? How can they connect with other producer organization outside the country?
Therefore legislation for producer organization to have the freedom to meet, to network, to communicate, to receive funding from outside the country, etc.. is very important.
What should Government do for farmers leaders to participate in forum like this one???
Pierre
Dear Pierre,
Yes, I think that the government should facilitate producer organizations (POs) uptake of ICT.
The infrastructure in this case should be both like public roads and electricity or alternative power. Yes, it should massively invest in ICTs that would be viable for POs. Though Kenya is in the forefront in ICT and has four under undersea fibre optic cables, easy access to the internet is a reality for those in the urban areas only.
The digital technology has come and revolutionalized the way we do things. This technology could be used for example to print pictorial pamphlets for members who cannot read, to store information, etc.
On legislation, the government can put into place policies that protect the POs from high taxes, zero rating of inputs and equipment etc. If the POs were to start a community radio for example, legislation would fasten the time it takes for them to acquire a license.
At the moment, many rural and far flung areas of Kenya are unreachable even by mobile phones; the government could give incentives/subsidies to mobile telephony providers who set up their boosters in these forgotten regions.
When it comes to access to information, the public sector could help in linkages for these POs to institutions and organizations that could provide useful information and to other POs that could enjoy mutual exchange of knowledge and knowhow.
The government should not be an outsider in these organizations, but should have at least a representative who could provide a link that could be the channel for information both ways and to alert the two when there is a forum like this. It would also be easy for PO leaders to be encouraged to participate in these fora on behalf of their members.
Anne
Hi, Peter,
I think you are absolutely right: governments should focus on providing public goods, mainly as you mentioned, rural infrastructure. In terms of ICT, governments may want to invest in partnerships with the private sector, in order to ensure that remote areas have access to low-cost internet and cell phone coverage. Grants to help producer organizations finance start up costs of investing in ICT (such as computers) can also be justified, as well as offering training for producer organizations' staff on the use of ICT, for example the use of software for financial management. Governments should also ensure that research institutions publish their research results in a form that producer organizations can readily use to communicate to their members the information that can be of use for their members (through their members' mobile phones for example, or their own web page). Often, research results are not published in a form that can be readily used by producer organizations and their members. I would say therefore, that governments should help producer organizations with the content that can be communicated via ICT rather than in the hardware itself.
Marie-Helene
Hi Marie-Helene
Thabnk you for your comments. Generally, I am skeptical of government initiatives (for various reasons such as lack of political will for follow through, lack of consistency, corruption, inefficient use of resources, and the whole slew of bureacractic complaints). I believe that government can be effective in some roles and tp be more specific to the question.
Governments could provide:
1) One time grants with no extension/no annual expiry. (to avoid waste at the end of bidget season and to encourage financial autonomy)
2) Declaring information networks to a be a universal public service and forcing IT companies to supprt outlying rural areas as part of a requirement/condition for licensing in the lucrative urban areas. (This worked very well in developing telephone and mail service in other countries.) For profit companies need "firm guidance" to help them produce all those "we care commercials". Developing nations have demonstrated time and time again that they have lucrative and vibrant IT markets, human capital to develop it, and companies have been able to cheery pick their services areas. Strong legislation to ensure that there is not a growing IT divide is necessary with an emphasis addressing the digita; divide that is increasing within developing nations.
from Marie-Helene
Often, research results are not published in a form that can be readily used by producer organizations and their members. I would say therefore, that governments should help producer organizations with the content that can be communicated via ICT rather than in the hardware itself.
I agree that governemnt can play a role in developing materials BUT I believe that government on the whole woprks too slowly and ICT content should be developed from both local knowledge and more flexible sources. Now if a government were willing to empower a small IT/knowledge base team of experts with developing content and gove them a free hand, then I think you would have hit upon a great solution (but that brings me back to my lack of faith in Gov organizations to move quickly and effiently and I think that NOPs or NGOs would be more effective).
I think in general, the role of governemnt should be at the policy level with impacts that target not specifically ICT, but ICT in rural areas (above suggestion). I think that industry (when properly motivated), NPOs and NGOs are much more efficient at getting things done.
Cheers
Peter
Hello Everyone,
Here in Roxas City there are a number of producer organizations and cooperatives that have benefitted so much from the local government (public sector). Being in the public sector myself, I have seen how producer organizations have worked together with the local government to improve their operations, in particular, in the areas of:
1. Funding - It is not new to most of us that in developing countries, producer organizations seek the assistance of lending institutions when they decide to expand operations which should include modernization of many of their systems such as their inventory systems, marketing, and communication systems, which are imperative for efficient and successful operations. The problem with this is that lending institutions are businesses that charge extremely high interest rates. The local government of Roxas City, seeing this problem, has extended financial assistance to a number of producer organizations in the city. The financial assistance extended is then paid back by producer organizations in manageable monthly amortizations. In many cases, the financial assistance extended was used in the purchase of computer units which are intended mostly for printing of product labels, for internet access needed in product research, and communication.
2. Technical Assistance - From previous discussions, it had been pointed out that one issue among producer organizations when it comes to ICT is the lack of skills or a good knowledge base. Our local government, responding to requests from certain producer organizations in the city, has brought in technical experts from the Department of Science and Technology, the TESDA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Natural Resources, as well as from the National Computerization Commission to deliver information and education packages and conduct trainings for producer organizations. Some trainings include website design and product marketing and packaging, inventory and the use of communication systems in the marketing of products.
3. Networking - As with other local governments all over the Philippines, our LGU has also involved the private sector in the uptake of ICT among producer organizations. As mandated in the local government code, special bodies have been established as part of the local government organization. These special bodies are composed of representatives from the private and public sector working together to address issues (not necessarily limited to but including ICT concerns).
These three areas are probably the most viable areas where public sector intervention is most feasible when it comes to ICT for producer organizations.
Regards,
Bryan
The public sector must play an important role in the sustainability of PO’s utilization of ICT. For one, the government can offer programs that are geared towards continuing or advanced education on ICT so that PO’s will be able to further sharpen their skills and keep up with the fast-paced technology. Also, the public sector can serve as bridge among PO’s to facilitate convergence and sharing of best practices. Through this, the potentials of ICT use can be even more maximized and increased productivity among producer organizations can be heightened.
In my opinion, providing training/capacity building using the most efficient and effective traditional and/or modern media technologies with the simplest and easy to understand message for farmers and producer organizations would be the role of the public sector.
I discussed in my answers to Question 1 the reason for prioritizing training/capacity building and in Question 2 the reason for using traditional media. I think another important element to benefit the farmers and producer organizations has something to do with the message. The public sector in cooperation with the academe and farmers or producer organization as users of ICT should produce ICT technologies/software based on academic research transformed to simple and easy to understand technologies/software to have impact in the practice of end users or the farmers or producer organizations as mentioned by Harris and Chib.
In the field survey I did last November 2011 as part of a research team, I experienced difficulty of farmers, fishermen, housewives, cottage/micro entrepreneurs in answering a questionnaire and an interview schedule due to the language used. They also commented on the difficulty of understanding the program guidelines due to the language. They suggested using pictures for the training on program guidelines and using Tagalog or the local language in the province for them to understand better the trainer and the survey questions. I agree with Sinha, Elder, and Smith that we should put emphasis on the knowledge translation or the technologies/software and using accessible language to reach the pertinent users/audiences or farmers or producer organizations. The public sector should take the lead to produce Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) and ICT useful to farmers or producer organizations. Specifically, the public sector should transform scientific or technical research information to very basic or applied training/capacity building materials and translate English materials to Tagalog or the local language in the community.
Public sector is having much role in supporting producer organization.Food security is a complex issue at present.Every individual must have regular access to sufficient and nutritional food. Public sector have to contribute more for achieving food security by supporting producer organisation as follows :
1) Removing trade barriers,
2) Improving investment in agriculture,
3) Development of infrastructures like storage facility and transport(Roads).
4) Make availability of the production technologies to the door step of the farmers.It is achieved by improving EXTENSION SERVICE.
5) Producers should be trained in the manner to produce high quality agricultural products.It is also achieved by improving extension service.
6) Cooperation should be there between the public and private sectors for making more investment on agriculture in every year.
Regarding
R.S.VERMA,TNAU,COIMBATORE,TAMILNADU.
The public, both government sector and people’s organisations must act as facilitators in creating a favourable atmosphere for ICT development so that producer organisations would benefit the most out of it to increase, sustain and improve productions in agriculture.
Favourable atmosphere would entail appropriate political agenda and its concommitant legislations that would allow and guarantee free usage and access to ICT technologies. It may also include support to the provision of technical groundwork for internet-based public services.
Thank you for all the great inputs. As Michael mentioned, let's try to focus on ICT for producer organizations rather than ICT for everything or issues of producer organizations in general.
To date, this is what I have grasped on public sector role for ICT in POs.
1. Basic infrastructure for ICT - mostly public, but I'd claim potentially also public-private collaboration
2. Public subsidies for POs to improve their ICT connectivity (equipment) and ability to use (capacity-building, training) - likely on a cost-sharing basis (equipment) and on a cost-sharing/full subsidy basis (capacity-building)
3. Content development - this is a bit of a mixed issue. While private sector can provide content for ICT enabled services it tends to not go for very labor some processes - this leaves the door for public sector content development
4. Actual service delivery - this is often better handled by the private sector but could be e.g., via rural radio programmes some of which are public
Riikka
Hi Riikka
Thank you for your summary.
1. Basic infrastructure for ICT - mostly public, but I'd claim potentially also public-private collaboration
2. Public subsidies for POs to improve their ICT connectivity (equipment) and ability to use (capacity-building, training) - likely on a cost-sharing basis (equipment) and on a cost-sharing/full subsidy basis (capacity-building)
3. Content development - this is a bit of a mixed issue. While private sector can provide content for ICT enabled services it tends to not go for very labor some processes - this leaves the door for public sector content development
4. Actual service delivery - this is often better handled by the private sector but could be e.g., via rural radio programmes some of which are public
So how do we "get" these things to happen?
In a country with limited resources for infrastructure development, and a difficult "current market", how can we motivate companies. If the present situation is not so palatable as a business investment for companies, sell them the future. Offer limited monopolies on new markets that companies are currently reluctant to invest in because of the poor sort term returns....
• Not likely to happen, is it? High risk if government is not stable, opposition from other companies, opposition from important "free trade nations", WTO ... and so on.
So what other option is there? Rely on domesticly owned companies (giving them protection from foreign companies)?
Nationalize the IT infrastructure?
I think that these are some things that need to be considered when we talk about what government can do because ICT for producer groups is not some isolated topic, it is IMO tied into a larger national policy related to IT and IT infrastucture.
One reason that I think that these issues are hard to manage is the lack of leadership from governments on overall IT policy and so I do not anticiapte that governemnt will be a driver of solutions at the local level, either.
Peter
Hi Peter! Your post is really challenging. It is not really easy for the government to deliver services on IT, when there is too much politics. The goal is there, the strategies are there and the resources are already there in the case of the Philippines. Almost all agencies have programs on IT development that extends from the national to the local levels. The problem lies on the implementation and complexity of how transactions (procurement, linkaging/coordination, etc) are being practiced by the government, plus the short tenurial term of government chief executives (under the Philippine government system). The changes of leadership of local government units often results to changes in priorities (no continuity of programs).
But, there there is something good that can result if the government will put IT development among its top agenda. Under the present Philippine administration, the "matuwid na daan" program has been set up. Through the program all government agencies should implement the "transparency seal" that requires posting all programs, activities, services and status of transaction in their respective websites.
In the case of the Department of Agriculture, it has taken upon itself to help bring government goods and services nearer to the farmers and rural communities. The road to develop a well-connected stakeholders through ICT may be long, but we have to start somewhere. As of the present, capability building are being intensified including the provision of subsidies in setting up private-led ICTs (like provision of gadgets - broadband to capacitated organizations.
The DBM has also started rationalizing budget of the government that will focus on programs that can have better and greater impacts, and among these are IT development. So at some points, resource rationalization begins during planning, programming and budgeting that usually starts with consultation with the civil society organizations. If the government can at least be doing right at this stage, chances are, the results can be attained, especially the basic public goods that are not only important to socio-economic development but are also important to rural IT development like infrastructure, research aand development, extension and policy development.
Hi Peter?
Nationalize the IT infrastructure?
In my own opinion, although nationalizing IT infrastructure is a measure to empowering people in an agricultural country, it poses a great challenge on the part of the government. In such country where there is hardly stable telecommunications infrastructure and more so, characterized with volatile economy, a nationalization law in IT would be too ideal. To borrow Dobek Pater, managing member of Africa Analysis Team, mining firms words on the Zimbabwe’s nationalism law on ICT “the nationalism law amounts to daylight robbery and has been largely proved to fail the world over…” (http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/en/issue-no-397/money/zimbabwe-s-new-natio/en)
However, what about an OSS instead?
What about a government-mandated open source policy for transferring ICT skills among farmers? I think this is much more feasible on the part of the public sector. I am of the opinion that this policy to change the operating systems and infrastructure of a country will provide opportunities for the transfer of ICT skills to traditionally underserved populations, farmers for one. The government could create large-scale project such as IT trainings and educational centers (which were mentioned time and again by other participants in this forum) and localized software development centers (especially if the country has a mass of underutilized software skills). Of course, this is easier said than done but this might initialize the change in the landscape of the IT infrastructure in any country.
Hi Dolores. Thank you for sharing your insights.
Please clarify what "OSS" stands for. Thank you!
Hi Michael!
Thanks for your clarification. OSS stands for open source software, you know I got this idea from the computer programmer expert in our institution. It's like using internet sources for free, such that you can use a software which is open, that is, no subscription rate. An example of this is the GNU Image Program (GIMP). This is widely used by photography enthusiasts and open source enthusiasts who are looking for alternatives to photoshop. You see, a licensed Photoshop software is too costly.
Hi Dolores,
Thank you for your insights, I also believe in free software, so let's rename it to FOSS. This will greatly affect the cost of software, but the hardware/infrastructure problems remain. If the government/LGUs/NGOs can look for alternative and cheaper ways for devices (such as Raspberry Pis), then we can go for a win.
Harv
Actually in spite of the widespread equalization of nationalization with theft, or heaven forbid "socialism" (yeah I know - just suffered through the US election cycle) and so on. I think that there is a good case for nationlism of key industries. Many nations have nationalized key indurties in varying degrees. BUt this forces us to ask - what is the role fo givernment? Is IT an essential service? DO citizens have a right to this service. If the the answer is yes (as I believe it to be) then the government MUST take action.
some "national sevices" - post office, telephone systems, public television (BBC, NHK)
BTW, "Nationalize the IT infrastructure? " was thrown out as a possible option- I must admit that I prefer a private industry (or cooperative solution, but I do lean more towards the stick than the carrot and nationaization is a pretty big stick.
The key point is that governement must make IT a national interest and prioritize the democraization of IT which means bringing it to rural areas. I think it is interesting to note the wide variation in IT service and infrastructure in the US (argueabley the "most" developed nation) and compare it to other Northern nations... (the US does not do so well by comparison) Not enough stick IMO.
Cheers
Peter