Question 1: Why are national e-agriculture strategies (also referred to as “ICT for agriculture strategies” or “cyber-strategies for agriculture”) needed for the agricultural sector to fully realize the benefits of ICTs?
Ken LohentoTechnical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA)Netherlands
Dear Federico
Thank you for your input.
In addition, it not only for policy makers that the clarification of the concept of e-agriculture is needed. Many agricultural stakeholders or ICT for development stakeholders, do not understand the concept (the latter maybe because they don’t understand the various components of the agricultural sector). A friend of mine, an agronomist, regularly says that agriculture is a concrete reality and is not virtual and argue there should be no "e". This may however be seen as a conservative perception. Also the "e" part of the word is not always clear for everybody. In my opinion the FAO definition of e-Agriculture that we have in the introduction section http://www.e-agriculture.org/forumtopics/introduction-39 is comprehensive. So indeed, some awareness raising is needed.
At the end of the day, we should not be religious about that word. We don't have to have all documents or strategies be labeled "e-agriculture strategies". Some people just talk about "ICT for agriculture strategies", other about "cyber-strategies" or "e-strategies for agriculture" etc. This approach may sometimes ease exchange with many stakeholders or help in understanding the what is going on that issue.
A few questions arise from the posts I have read so far.
This first of question of our discussion entails a number of things.
Note that we start from the view that ICTs hold benefits which the
agricultural sector stands to realize, to take advantage from. Can
national e-strategies be the an effective means to bring those
benefits to fruition? What is the justification to the “race” to
national e-agriculture strategies (assuming this move was as fast as
the notion of race implies)? To what ends are they set up? What are
their anticipated benefits? And most importantly how are they
instrumental in helping the agricultural sector harness and benefit
from ICTs?
For instance, when Robert you write in (b) of your response that
e-agric strategies will help majority of relevant players to begin a
learning process on how the incorporation and utilization of ICTs in
Agriculture can be of greater benefit, the question precisely is about
what your presumed, anticipated or even proven notion of that greater
benefit is, what it entails.
And Bertrand, could you clarify how RFID chips have played a role in
address the Praedial larcency bug issue (assuming that’s what you
meant). As Ken also noted, it would be good to hear more about your
experience with RFID (at least to the extent of addressing this first
question of the discussion for now). Clearly, RFID may be useful in
situations involving the distribution of massive production. Jimmie
mentioned how in Uganda it is said that low productivity (along with
price fluctuations) is part of the factors contributing to poverty
among farmers. So it is counter-intuitive to think of RFID as an
important need for agriculture in ACP countries. Any experience that
shows otherwise will be really valuable to share.
As Ben pointed out, if there are people who think e-agriculture
strategies in ACP countries are irrelevant or counter-productive, it
would be of interest for this forum to see that perspective elaborated
on as well.
A few questions arise from the posts I have read so far.
This first of question of our discussion entails a number of things.
Note that we start from the view that ICTs hold benefits which the
agricultural sector stands to realize, to take advantage from. Can
national e-strategies be the an effective means to bring those
benefits to fruition? What is the justification to the “race” to
national e-agriculture strategies (assuming this move was as fast as
the notion of race implies)? To what ends are they set up? What are
their anticipated benefits? And most importantly how are they
instrumental in helping the agricultural sector harness and benefit
from ICTs?
For instance, when Robert you write in (b) of your response that
e-agric strategies will help majority of relevant players to begin a
learning process on how the incorporation and utilization of ICTs in
Agriculture can be of greater benefit, the question precisely is about
what your presumed, anticipated or even proven notion of that greater
benefit is, what it entails.
And Bertrand, could you clarify how RFID chips have played a role in
address the Praedial larcency bug issue (assuming that’s what you
meant). As Ken also noted, it would be good to hear more about your
experience with RFID (at least to the extent of addressing this first
question of the discussion for now). Clearly, RFID may be useful in
situations involving the distribution of massive production. Jimmie
mentioned how in Uganda it is said that low productivity (along with
price fluctuations) is part of the factors contributing to poverty
among farmers. So it is counter-intuitive to think of RFID as an
important need for agriculture in ACP countries. Any experience that
shows otherwise will be really valuable to share.
As Ben pointed out, if there are people who think e-agriculture
strategies in ACP countries are irrelevant or counter-productive, it
would be of interest for this forum to see that perspective elaborated
on as well.
Anju MangalSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityFiji
Before I address the question, it’s important to understand the terminology and also the reason for developing e-agriculture strategies. Not all countries have national e-agriculture strategies and this is apparent in some of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories. However, they do have national ICT strategies which highlight agriculture, forestry and rural development. The terminology e-agriculture is fairly new and it’s usually associated with sharing and disseminating agriculture information and also deals with innovative ideas of developing applications on agriculture through the use of ICTs. Although these e-agriculture strategies are not existing, organisations, partners and or government ministries are working towards initiatives that are sharing and disseminating information through the use of ICTs. Example, applications such as m-application (mobile application) are developed to provide market prices on agriculture commodities. Another example would be the use of social media and web 2.0 training to promote information sharing in the agriculture and forestry sector. These are some very popular initiatives being implemented in countries. However, the activity may not be outlined in the agriculture and or national ICT strategies.
ICT for agriculture strategies is very vague and we cannot discuss this aspect unless we discuss the main national strategy. For example, Fiji has the Strategic development plan which highlights Information and Communication Technology sector and Agriculture/livestock and forestry sectors. One of the key indicators under ICT is to develop Fiji as an attractive information communications hub in the region and in order to achieve this; they have a goal to increase the number of rural tele-centres which can be linked to the agriculture sector but unfortunately, this is not mentioned specifically under the strategy. There is support for sustainable activities in agriculture in relation to developing infrastructure, research and extension. Under the Fiji national broadband policy, government is taking the lead by delivering its services online over broadband. “Lead Government applications – additional to the above, Government shall develop a range of lead applications for delivery of new, enhanced or extended services online using broadband in agriculture and fisheries to assist in production, marketing and logistics associated with the industry”.
As a starting point, it’s important to ensure that agriculture, forestry and rural development is mentioned in the national ICT strategy. The Ministry of agriculture should ensure that during the formulation of a national ICT strategy, they should highlight access, use and application of ICT in the strategy to improve agriculture, forestry and rural development in a sustainable way. During national consultations, it’s important that all the sectors are well versed and aware of what the national strategy entails. It’s obvious that during stakeholder consultations, not all ministries are involved in the process of establishing the national ICT strategy. Ministries are usually in-charge of establishing their own strategies and it should be aligned to the main national strategy to full realise the benefits of ICTs. It’s important to have a committee that is set up to coordinate at national and also community level. This way the ministry will have ownership and support for the ICT strategy in the agriculture sector.
Thanks, Anju, for this informative post which kind of explain well why some countries may not have an e-agriculture strategy in place -- not to be ironic about it, considering our question, but an interesting point to note :) Anyway, it is thrue that in places a framework may not have been articulated as such but still interesting initiatives may be taken. The problem with that is that (contrary to the Fiji case) it is not always clear what the vision is and what the strategic goals are (all of which would have been clearly articulated in an explicit strategy.)
But do rural telecentres really contribute to that vision of Fiji as a regional ICT hub? In what ways? Or is the agriculture a little left behind in the pursuit of that vision?
Anju MangalSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityFiji
Mawaki,
Regarding rural telecentres, there's still a lot to be done to enable local people and farmers to have access to information. Ministry of Information is setting up literacy camps in rural parts of Fiji to disseminate information to the public. There have been efforts in decentralising information centres and libraries in Fiji. Government of Fiji started launching community telecentre projects in Schools that are in remote areas. These telecentres are housed within the school compound. This is a starting point to allow students/young people to access computers, internet and the digital technologies so that they can find information that they are looking for an communicating with people in the outside world. However, there is still a lot more to be done in the agriculture sector. At this point, farmers are not accessing these telecentres but we usually believe in "one computer per child/per family" --- if you allow a young girl or boy to access internet, he or she can share information with their family (particular families that have a farm or are doing involved in the agriculture sector).
Whilst I see telecentres as a useful initiative, I still think that it's worth investing in initiatives that are linked to having information on hand through sms (mobile phones)/voice message etc. The Government of Fiji (Ministry of Primary Industries, Agriculture) is implementing and in the process of launching "Fiji Makete" which was developed from the the ‘Fruit and Vegetable’ strategy, with a focus on import substitution through increased local production and supply of the tourism sector. The Fiji Government has also developed a ‘Feed the Hotels’ initiative, working with farmers in the Sigatoka valley to supply fruits and vegetables to the hotels along the Coral Coast.
"They have invested in the mobile technology used in the ‘buy and sell’ applications is known as Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) that is used by the network to send information (usually text menus) between a mobile phone and an application on the network. The application also allows farmers to access information about market pricing for their cash crops. The ‘buy and sell’ feature is available on most phones that are used today. To access the menus on the phone, customers may dial a certain number and get a menu which includes information such as; Sell, Buy, Weather, Registration etc. Users are then able to select the required service and continue with the transaction. E.g. if the user chooses the ‘Sell’ option, the list of offers will be sent to the user in a text message."
Anyway, this is just the first step. The Secretariat of the Pacific Community is planning to use this technology to further pursue the idea of disseminating information on animal and plant disease outbreaks etc. This is still an ongoin discussion.
There are other good examples of the use of telecentres in the Pacific --- Samoa Ministry of ICT has established 12 rural villages with ICT centres to allow them access to information and awareness and skills to ICT. But this is not necessarily targeted towards building an agriculture hub. The centres are equipped with latest technology and there's a fair price in getting these services like the use of internet, passport photos, family and group photos, colour printing, copying, scanning, phone, fax, webcam, projector hire and CD burning etc.
Benjamin Kwasi AddomThe Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)Netherlands
Dear Anjum,
Thanks for this contribution. There is no doubt that there are several iniatives in a number of countries to support the deployment of ICTs for agricultural development that are not labeled as "e-Agriculture strategy". I agree with you that the concept of 'e-Agriculture' is fairly new, and it is still emerging.
My question, however, is since most of the National ICT Policies/Strategies were developed prior to these new developments in the ICT sector (especially with the mobile technologies), do you see a need for a more detailed/standalone strategy for the agricultural sector in Fiji that will guide the implementation/M&E of these ICT projects/programs?
Anju MangalSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityFiji
Hi Ben,
To answer your question, yes these national ICT policies and strategies were developed prior to new developments related to m-agriculture. This is why it's important to review the national strategies. I do see a need for a more details strategy for the agricultural sector in Fiji implementing ICT projets that will help progress the agriculture sector. The Ministry of Primary Industries, department of agriculture has a really good website http://www.agriculture.org.fj/. They are using ICT such as the use of GlobalPositioning System (GPS) to train officers to understand how to go about using GPS. According to the MPI team, these officers will be using the GPS for data capture especially when conducting surveys in various locations around the country. The MPI team are being trained to identify crop areas as well as working out the various classification land by using the technology of the GPS.
The MPI team were also trained on the use of social media and web 2.0. As a result they have set up a facebook page to promote information sharing and also to advertise prices of livestock and also crops/vegetables.
I firmly believe that ICTs bring benefits to the sector and e - agriculture strategies can be effective. The justification is that in order for us (small states) to remain competitive globally, our extensionists and producers and must be in touch with current technologies being utilised and one of the easiest ways to accomplish this is through ICTs. While the adoption of these technologies will not be instant at any level, it will certainly give some direction of the way in which to move.
A national strategy can also bring greater cohesiveness within the sector and foster collaborative efforts between farmers and farming groups, and stakeholders such as manufacturers and exporters of fresh produce.
While the agricultural sector here has started implementing ICTs, there are some challenges. It's reach is limited to only to those stakeholders who are in touch with new interventions put in place by the MOA, and unfortunately, many farmers are excluded. A national e - agriculture strategy, should involve a needs assessment which could highlight current deficiencies within the sector as it relates to ICTs, and once this assessment is completed, the steps to the way forward should be clear. Other challenges include training of extentionists in how ICTs can be used, accessibility to equipment (many stakeholders particularly farmers do not have smart phones), infrastructure and general computer literacy.
Question 1: Why are national e-agriculture strategies (also referred to as “ICT for agriculture strategies” or “cyber-strategies for agriculture”) needed for the agricultural sector to fully realize the benefits of ICTs?
Dear Federico
Thank you for your input.
In addition, it not only for policy makers that the clarification of the concept of e-agriculture is needed. Many agricultural stakeholders or ICT for development stakeholders, do not understand the concept (the latter maybe because they don’t understand the various components of the agricultural sector). A friend of mine, an agronomist, regularly says that agriculture is a concrete reality and is not virtual and argue there should be no "e". This may however be seen as a conservative perception. Also the "e" part of the word is not always clear for everybody. In my opinion the FAO definition of e-Agriculture that we have in the introduction section http://www.e-agriculture.org/forumtopics/introduction-39 is comprehensive. So indeed, some awareness raising is needed.
At the end of the day, we should not be religious about that word. We don't have to have all documents or strategies be labeled "e-agriculture strategies". Some people just talk about "ICT for agriculture strategies", other about "cyber-strategies" or "e-strategies for agriculture" etc. This approach may sometimes ease exchange with many stakeholders or help in understanding the what is going on that issue.
Regards
Ken Lohento
A few questions arise from the posts I have read so far.
This first of question of our discussion entails a number of things.
Note that we start from the view that ICTs hold benefits which the
agricultural sector stands to realize, to take advantage from. Can
national e-strategies be the an effective means to bring those
benefits to fruition? What is the justification to the “race” to
national e-agriculture strategies (assuming this move was as fast as
the notion of race implies)? To what ends are they set up? What are
their anticipated benefits? And most importantly how are they
instrumental in helping the agricultural sector harness and benefit
from ICTs?
For instance, when Robert you write in (b) of your response that
e-agric strategies will help majority of relevant players to begin a
learning process on how the incorporation and utilization of ICTs in
Agriculture can be of greater benefit, the question precisely is about
what your presumed, anticipated or even proven notion of that greater
benefit is, what it entails.
And Bertrand, could you clarify how RFID chips have played a role in
address the Praedial larcency bug issue (assuming that’s what you
meant). As Ken also noted, it would be good to hear more about your
experience with RFID (at least to the extent of addressing this first
question of the discussion for now). Clearly, RFID may be useful in
situations involving the distribution of massive production. Jimmie
mentioned how in Uganda it is said that low productivity (along with
price fluctuations) is part of the factors contributing to poverty
among farmers. So it is counter-intuitive to think of RFID as an
important need for agriculture in ACP countries. Any experience that
shows otherwise will be really valuable to share.
As Ben pointed out, if there are people who think e-agriculture
strategies in ACP countries are irrelevant or counter-productive, it
would be of interest for this forum to see that perspective elaborated
on as well.
Thanks,
Mawaki
On Tue
A few questions arise from the posts I have read so far.
This first of question of our discussion entails a number of things.
Note that we start from the view that ICTs hold benefits which the
agricultural sector stands to realize, to take advantage from. Can
national e-strategies be the an effective means to bring those
benefits to fruition? What is the justification to the “race” to
national e-agriculture strategies (assuming this move was as fast as
the notion of race implies)? To what ends are they set up? What are
their anticipated benefits? And most importantly how are they
instrumental in helping the agricultural sector harness and benefit
from ICTs?
For instance, when Robert you write in (b) of your response that
e-agric strategies will help majority of relevant players to begin a
learning process on how the incorporation and utilization of ICTs in
Agriculture can be of greater benefit, the question precisely is about
what your presumed, anticipated or even proven notion of that greater
benefit is, what it entails.
And Bertrand, could you clarify how RFID chips have played a role in
address the Praedial larcency bug issue (assuming that’s what you
meant). As Ken also noted, it would be good to hear more about your
experience with RFID (at least to the extent of addressing this first
question of the discussion for now). Clearly, RFID may be useful in
situations involving the distribution of massive production. Jimmie
mentioned how in Uganda it is said that low productivity (along with
price fluctuations) is part of the factors contributing to poverty
among farmers. So it is counter-intuitive to think of RFID as an
important need for agriculture in ACP countries. Any experience that
shows otherwise will be really valuable to share.
As Ben pointed out, if there are people who think e-agriculture
strategies in ACP countries are irrelevant or counter-productive, it
would be of interest for this forum to see that perspective elaborated
on as well.
Thanks,
Mawaki
On Tue
Before I address the question, it’s important to understand the terminology and also the reason for developing e-agriculture strategies. Not all countries have national e-agriculture strategies and this is apparent in some of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories. However, they do have national ICT strategies which highlight agriculture, forestry and rural development. The terminology e-agriculture is fairly new and it’s usually associated with sharing and disseminating agriculture information and also deals with innovative ideas of developing applications on agriculture through the use of ICTs. Although these e-agriculture strategies are not existing, organisations, partners and or government ministries are working towards initiatives that are sharing and disseminating information through the use of ICTs. Example, applications such as m-application (mobile application) are developed to provide market prices on agriculture commodities. Another example would be the use of social media and web 2.0 training to promote information sharing in the agriculture and forestry sector. These are some very popular initiatives being implemented in countries. However, the activity may not be outlined in the agriculture and or national ICT strategies.
ICT for agriculture strategies is very vague and we cannot discuss this aspect unless we discuss the main national strategy. For example, Fiji has the Strategic development plan which highlights Information and Communication Technology sector and Agriculture/livestock and forestry sectors. One of the key indicators under ICT is to develop Fiji as an attractive information communications hub in the region and in order to achieve this; they have a goal to increase the number of rural tele-centres which can be linked to the agriculture sector but unfortunately, this is not mentioned specifically under the strategy. There is support for sustainable activities in agriculture in relation to developing infrastructure, research and extension. Under the Fiji national broadband policy, government is taking the lead by delivering its services online over broadband. “Lead Government applications – additional to the above, Government shall develop a range of lead applications for delivery of new, enhanced or extended services online using broadband in agriculture and fisheries to assist in production, marketing and logistics associated with the industry”.
As a starting point, it’s important to ensure that agriculture, forestry and rural development is mentioned in the national ICT strategy. The Ministry of agriculture should ensure that during the formulation of a national ICT strategy, they should highlight access, use and application of ICT in the strategy to improve agriculture, forestry and rural development in a sustainable way. During national consultations, it’s important that all the sectors are well versed and aware of what the national strategy entails. It’s obvious that during stakeholder consultations, not all ministries are involved in the process of establishing the national ICT strategy. Ministries are usually in-charge of establishing their own strategies and it should be aligned to the main national strategy to full realise the benefits of ICTs. It’s important to have a committee that is set up to coordinate at national and also community level. This way the ministry will have ownership and support for the ICT strategy in the agriculture sector.
Thanks, Anju, for this informative post which kind of explain well why some countries may not have an e-agriculture strategy in place -- not to be ironic about it, considering our question, but an interesting point to note :) Anyway, it is thrue that in places a framework may not have been articulated as such but still interesting initiatives may be taken. The problem with that is that (contrary to the Fiji case) it is not always clear what the vision is and what the strategic goals are (all of which would have been clearly articulated in an explicit strategy.)
But do rural telecentres really contribute to that vision of Fiji as a regional ICT hub? In what ways? Or is the agriculture a little left behind in the pursuit of that vision?
Mawaki,
Regarding rural telecentres, there's still a lot to be done to enable local people and farmers to have access to information. Ministry of Information is setting up literacy camps in rural parts of Fiji to disseminate information to the public. There have been efforts in decentralising information centres and libraries in Fiji. Government of Fiji started launching community telecentre projects in Schools that are in remote areas. These telecentres are housed within the school compound. This is a starting point to allow students/young people to access computers, internet and the digital technologies so that they can find information that they are looking for an communicating with people in the outside world. However, there is still a lot more to be done in the agriculture sector. At this point, farmers are not accessing these telecentres but we usually believe in "one computer per child/per family" --- if you allow a young girl or boy to access internet, he or she can share information with their family (particular families that have a farm or are doing involved in the agriculture sector).
Whilst I see telecentres as a useful initiative, I still think that it's worth investing in initiatives that are linked to having information on hand through sms (mobile phones)/voice message etc. The Government of Fiji (Ministry of Primary Industries, Agriculture) is implementing and in the process of launching "Fiji Makete" which was developed from the the ‘Fruit and Vegetable’ strategy, with a focus on import substitution through increased local production and supply of the tourism sector. The Fiji Government has also developed a ‘Feed the Hotels’ initiative, working with farmers in the Sigatoka valley to supply fruits and vegetables to the hotels along the Coral Coast.
"They have invested in the mobile technology used in the ‘buy and sell’ applications is known as Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) that is used by the network to send information (usually text menus) between a mobile phone and an application on the network. The application also allows farmers to access information about market pricing for their cash crops. The ‘buy and sell’ feature is available on most phones that are used today. To access the menus on the phone, customers may dial a certain number and get a menu which includes information such as; Sell, Buy, Weather, Registration etc. Users are then able to select the required service and continue with the transaction. E.g. if the user chooses the ‘Sell’ option, the list of offers will be sent to the user in a text message."
Anyway, this is just the first step. The Secretariat of the Pacific Community is planning to use this technology to further pursue the idea of disseminating information on animal and plant disease outbreaks etc. This is still an ongoin discussion.
There are other good examples of the use of telecentres in the Pacific --- Samoa Ministry of ICT has established 12 rural villages with ICT centres to allow them access to information and awareness and skills to ICT. But this is not necessarily targeted towards building an agriculture hub. The centres are equipped with latest technology and there's a fair price in getting these services like the use of internet, passport photos, family and group photos, colour printing, copying, scanning, phone, fax, webcam, projector hire and CD burning etc.
Dear Anjum,
Thanks for this contribution. There is no doubt that there are several iniatives in a number of countries to support the deployment of ICTs for agricultural development that are not labeled as "e-Agriculture strategy". I agree with you that the concept of 'e-Agriculture' is fairly new, and it is still emerging.
My question, however, is since most of the National ICT Policies/Strategies were developed prior to these new developments in the ICT sector (especially with the mobile technologies), do you see a need for a more detailed/standalone strategy for the agricultural sector in Fiji that will guide the implementation/M&E of these ICT projects/programs?
Thanks.
Ben
Hi Ben,
To answer your question, yes these national ICT policies and strategies were developed prior to new developments related to m-agriculture. This is why it's important to review the national strategies. I do see a need for a more details strategy for the agricultural sector in Fiji implementing ICT projets that will help progress the agriculture sector. The Ministry of Primary Industries, department of agriculture has a really good website http://www.agriculture.org.fj/. They are using ICT such as the use of GlobalPositioning System (GPS) to train officers to understand how to go about using GPS. According to the MPI team, these officers will be using the GPS for data capture especially when conducting surveys in various locations around the country. The MPI team are being trained to identify crop areas as well as working out the various classification land by using the technology of the GPS.
The MPI team were also trained on the use of social media and web 2.0. As a result they have set up a facebook page to promote information sharing and also to advertise prices of livestock and also crops/vegetables.
A few questions arise from the posts I have read so far.
This first of question of our discussion entails a number of things.
Note that we start from the view that ICTs hold benefits which the
agricultural sector stands to realize, to take advantage from. Can
national e-strategies be the an effective means to bring those
benefits to fruition? What is the justification to the “race” to
national e-agriculture strategies (assuming this move was as fast as
the notion of race implies)? To what ends are they set up? What are
their anticipated benefits? And most importantly how are they
instrumental in helping the agricultural sector harness and benefit
from ICTs?
For instance, when Robert you write in (b) of your response that
e-agric strategies will help majority of relevant players to begin a
learning process on how the incorporation and utilization of ICTs in
Agriculture can be of greater benefit, the question precisely is about
what your presumed, anticipated or even proven notion of that greater
benefit is, what it entails.
And Bertrand, could you clarify how RFID chips have played a role in
address the Praedial larcency bug issue (assuming that’s what you
meant). As Ken also noted, it would be good to hear more about your
experience with RFID (at least to the extent of addressing this first
question of the discussion for now). Clearly, RFID may be useful in
situations involving the distribution of massive production. Jimmie
mentioned how in Uganda it is said that low productivity (along with
price fluctuations) is part of the factors contributing to poverty
among farmers. So it is counter-intuitive to think of RFID as an
important need for agriculture in ACP countries. Any experience that
shows otherwise will be really valuable to share.
As Ben pointed out, if there are people who think e-agriculture
strategies in ACP countries are irrelevant or counter-productive, it
would be of interest for this forum to see that perspective elaborated
on as well.
Thanks,
Mawaki
Greetings from Trinidad and Tobago.
I firmly believe that ICTs bring benefits to the sector and e - agriculture strategies can be effective. The justification is that in order for us (small states) to remain competitive globally, our extensionists and producers and must be in touch with current technologies being utilised and one of the easiest ways to accomplish this is through ICTs. While the adoption of these technologies will not be instant at any level, it will certainly give some direction of the way in which to move.
A national strategy can also bring greater cohesiveness within the sector and foster collaborative efforts between farmers and farming groups, and stakeholders such as manufacturers and exporters of fresh produce.
While the agricultural sector here has started implementing ICTs, there are some challenges. It's reach is limited to only to those stakeholders who are in touch with new interventions put in place by the MOA, and unfortunately, many farmers are excluded. A national e - agriculture strategy, should involve a needs assessment which could highlight current deficiencies within the sector as it relates to ICTs, and once this assessment is completed, the steps to the way forward should be clear. Other challenges include training of extentionists in how ICTs can be used, accessibility to equipment (many stakeholders particularly farmers do not have smart phones), infrastructure and general computer literacy.