Question 3 (opens 19 Nov.)

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