Question 2 (opens 14 Nov.)

My thanks to everyone who is making time to participate in and enrich this discussion. We are greatful.

As we are now into the 2nd question of the forum, it seems prudent to remind everyone that while ICT has many exciting applications in rural development, here we need to keep the content focused on issues related to both ICT and producer organizations. (Information outside of this context unfortunately cannot be included in the summary report that will be published following the discussion.)

Thank you. Your facilitator

Hello Everyone,

I personally see the need for producer organizations to allocate a significant share of their resources to research and development.  While there has been anecdotal evidence as well as case studies showing how ICT can improve operations among producer organizations, there is still a need to enrich the producer organization knowledge-base with empirical studies aimed at:

1. Theory-building - there is a need for valid generalizations about the role of ICT in producer organizations

2. Model or paradigm development - working, tested, and assessed frameworks would help greatly in how to ensure that ICT operates efficiently in producer organizations

3. Criteria development - effective standards need to be set for ICT in producer organizations, for instance, what kind of ICT medium would work best in a particular producer organization?

Regards,

Bryan 

Bryan, this is interesting. In the case of limited resources, and an assumption that an organization's goal is not related to the use of ICT itself, is this still the case?

If it is, it would be helpful to see examples of producer organizations benefiting when they elucidate theory or build models/paradigms themselves. Otherwise it would be expected that concerns regarding limited resources will still lead investment elsewhere.

Hi Michael,

"In the case of limited resources, and an assumption that an organization's goal is not related to the use of ICT itself, is this still the case?"

In a utopian sense, it should be because I personally believe that a good knowledge-base always works toward benefitting any organization, in general.  It's a case of look before you leap and leap only when there is something to fall unto.  This is where the value of theory-building, model development, and standard/criteria establishment lies.  Any organization, in essense, should have had studies to back its objectives and goals.  In cases where there are limited resources, like in developing countries for instance, the need for research and development in these three areas should even take the forefront because with limited resources, wastage should be avoided as much as possible and a good knowledge-base can lessen risky organizational decisions and possibly even faulty investment of resources.

"If it is, it would be helpful to see examples of producer organizations benefiting when they elucidate theory or build models/paradigms themselves. Otherwise it would be expected that concerns regarding limited resources will still lead investment elsewhere."

The efforts of the Asian Development Bank in knowledge management can be one example of my assertion.  Projects that they fund are mostly based on exhaustive studies that are well grounded on theory, are well conceptualized in terms of modeling, and have concretely articulated standards.  This works both ways - it ensures that the funding agency's investments are maximized and it also guarantees success for the funding recipient's program or project.  Many other funding organizations think this way, hence my perception that there really is a need to focus on building rich knowledge bases for organizations.  However, I do agree that limited resources could lead investment elsewhere, but for producer organizations that know better, research and development should really be prioritized.

Warm regards,

Bryan

ITU’s Missing Link Hypothesis forwards that investments on last mile infrastructure development and utilization from the backbone should be made by agencies who deliver basic services such as health, agriculture, education etc.

This begs the question, will ICT technology and services ever be a viable investment destination for the agriculture sector. The agriculture sector is as informatized as other sectors. Hence investments will have to be made. Examples of these range from equipping extension services with digital tools to linking farm production with commodities trading. Nonetheless, can the farmer-producer and his organization be expected to readily make these investments? Hardly, because of the economies of scale are lacking. But there may be other reasons as well:

The commodity that ICT carries is information and knowledge. Indeed, money values can now be attached on this vital commodity, but their nature is ephemeral, not material. Information and knowledge are intangible. Hence, there is lesser propensity to invest in them.

Producers’ associations may have a knowledge dimension. However, they are not yet knowledge organizations since the commodities that they deal with are actual produce, i.e., rice, corn, vegetables, bananas, coffee, etc. Thus, information and knowledge fall way below their list of investment priorities compared to fertilizers, tractors, barns and post-harvest facilities. (Not too long ago, development agencies also had information and communication divisions way below their list of critical units for program planning and budgeting.)

Third, ICT is considered both as a development sector and a development theme. As a theme, it is considered a public good, a utility, and its funding is relegated to public agencies. Up to now, farmers associations still depend on the government for the construction of farm to market roads.

But then again, I may be wrong and contradicted by on-the-ground developments as we upload these posts.

I agree with Dr. Sandy that as a theme, ICT is considered a public good. Thus, its funding is relagated to public agencies. This is very much true in the case of the Philippines.

I was able to visit the website of the Philippine Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Training Institute (ATI). ATI is the former Bureau of Agricultural Extension. (www.ati.gov.ph). According to ATI's website, the ATI is the "Home of e-Extension in the Philippines". I got intrigued and did some research. True enough, Department of Agriculturre Order No. 2007-003 mandated the ATI to lead in the provision of e-Extension  services in collaboration with the various agencies, bureaus and organizational units of the DA. This is to integrate and harmonize ICT-based extension delivery system for agriculture and fisheries.

The ATI provides e-learning to farmers and fisherfolks. It maintains Farmers' Contact Center which farmers may access via phone, text, or email.

What else can I say? This government agency fully embraced ICT in the provision of extension services to producer organizations. This is a government agency which utilized ICT not just to reach out further towards empowering the stakeholders - the farmers and the fisherfolks., but also to make extension service available which in turn will entice and prod farmers to come to ATI.

I agree, Bry! Research-based information is still more reliable for a quality performance and produce. It has to be done and must be done rightfully.

Kelly

If an organization recognizes ICT as a core function, it is but appropriate to have ICT development as a major line item in terms of budget allocation.

Among the priority areas to invest on at the moment in the case of the Philippines in the agriculture sector is to fully develop its ICT infrastructure that should be accessible by the small farmers. In most rural areas, particularly where poverty level is high, ICT seems to be considered as a luxury expense. Thus, the government may strategies and invest to put up local ICT centers which are accessible to farmers where they can browse necesary information on agricultural policies, programs technologies and opportunities. This centers can be likened to what are existing in some areas, the Farmers Information Technology System (FITS) centers. Or these centers can expanded or improved where ICT hardwares can be installed. The different organizations can converege and support each other to sustain such centers. In this way, resources can be optimized and even avoid duplication of activities among organizations and agencies.

You are right Susan.  While everyday ICTs, such as cellphones, are more widely used, the complex ICTs used in production is still deficient.  This is perhaps due to the fact that ICT adoption is sensitive to variables such as the location, size and income level of the operation, market access, technological level and the age and education of the producers.

- Koy

Yes Susan, I like your idea, if that vision comes to realization through the effort of organizations for budgeting financing ICT development once the need has been recognized.  It could be a big aid to step ahead from the challenges of employing and utilizing the ICT.

I would like to add that proper distribution of labors and functions as well as allocated budget also needs to be look upon and observed.  I think there will be no duplication of works from the point of view of public and private agencies in terms of responding to the social needs, let's say of our country when one organization or agency knows their specific concern, task, and interest and focuses and concentrates merely on its own field of interest and pursuit.  

However, here this is the time where partnerhip and collaboration must be applied while respecting each one's functions and endeavors.  Coordination and participation of many; of the whole community of all sectors are needed.  Plus the opinion that if local people are motivated and encouraged enough to recognize the value of ICT in the improvement of their lives, whether farming or fishing, again completion is easy to materialize.