Question 5 (opens 5 Mar.)
Question 5: Stakeholder roles: What are the roles of ICT and agricultural stakeholders in e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation? How can we ensure the full participation of farmers and other non-governmental stakeholders ? What are the role(s) of the Ministry in charge of ICT and the one in charge of Agriculture? What role(s) for international stakeholders?
Thanks Brad for the clarification. Okay, I guess my first reading leaned more toward role than responsibility, thus the responsibility matrix is to highlight the stakeholders in charge or leading each phase. But then again, if we consider the Evaluation as being not only one of the strategy as formulated (Formulation) but also as implemented (Implementation), putting farmers as co-responsible for evaluation may raise some issues, no? (No doubt that they will be instrumental as informants for the evaluation.)
I do find the further elaboration provided by Towela below (unless it appears above after I post this) very useful. We can then further distinguish between types of role in addition to taking the lead (responsibility), e.g.: accountable, consulted, support, etc.
Building on Brad’s model and borrowing from Project Management, one could have a matrix that shows the stakeholder group, the functions (formulate, implement, evaluate) and the specific role/contribution from each stakeholder. One formulation would thus be:
Some definitions are in order:
Responsible: those who do the work to achieve the task
Accountable : the one ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible.
Consulted: those whose opinions are sought
Informed: Those who are kept up-to-date on progress
Support: resources allocated to responsible. Unlike consulted, who may provide input to the task, support help complete the task.
I realise that this is still a bit raw and would need further refining.
In the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy 2012 – 2016 (MGDS II) available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12222.pdf, the following lessons from the first phase are cited as critical success factors for MGDS II:
· Successful implementation of any national development strategy requires
commitment from all stakeholders;
· A strong indicator framework is critical for measuring progress towards defined goals,
outcomes and targets;
· Availability of data is crucial for monitoring progress of MGDS implementation;
· Strengthened human and financial capacity is crucial for successful implementation of
the MGDS;
· Alignment of the national budget and sector strategies to the national development
strategy; and
· Alignment of donor support to the national development strategy.
Further, the government has developed guidelines on Sector Working Groups (“ Institutionalizing Sector Working Groups (SWGs) to Strengthen the Implementation of the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS” available at : http://www.aideffectiveness.org/media/k2/attachments/Guideline_Booklet_compressed_1.pdf ) The aim of SWGs is to provide a forum for negotiation, policy dialogue, and agreement of plans and undertakings among stakeholders at sectoral level. This is in line with the multi-stakeholder approach proposed by Ben and others.
As part of M&E, the Government of Malawi holds an MGDS Annual Review with its donor partners. My perception of this review process is that it is very donor-centric and perhaps there should be efforts to make it more “ multi-stakeholder”. (I do know that in the preparation of the MGDs, national consultations were held; I’m just not sure whether there is a national process in terms of the reviews.) The Annexe to this document has a very nice table on Sectoral Composition which identifies major stakeholder groupings (Government, Development Agencies, Civil Society , Private sector) and lists for each thematic area in the MGDS, the names of organisations that fall under these groupings. There are noticeable gaps in the private sector column and I think with more input, this could be a very useful tool.
I think too that a refined model of the SWG would help to improve the participation of farmers and non-governmentals.
FORMULATION
1.The in co-operation of the views and concerns of all Agricultural Stakeholders and other relevant actors;through the organization of Stakeholder Forums,Consulation Meetings etc.
2.The Recognition,Review and In co-operation of existing e-agricultural initiatives relevant for the formulation of a holistic e-agricultural strategy.
3.The formulation of a Non Politically inclined e-agriculture strategy in order to avoid implementation challenges.
4.The Recogniton of the need for capacity development on ICT and e-agriculture as a whole to ensure effective implementation.
IMPLEMENTATION
1.The engagement of all relevant stakeholders eg:farmers,financial institutions,produce buying companes NGO's etc. in the implementation of the activities contained in the e-agricultural strategy.
2.The implementation of Results Oriented projects and programs as contained in the e-agricultural strategy.
EVALUATION
1.The design of a strategic Evaluation Strategy to strategically Evaluate the projects as contained in the e-agriculture strategy.
2.The implementation of e- evaluation strategies to fully track the progress of activities as contained in the e-agriculture strategy.
Dear Nganwani,
Thanks for the contribution.
My question is: should funding for the formulation and implementation of the e-agricultural stategy be the responsibility of the international structures? Why do you think so?
Regards
Justin
Dear Justin,
In my response to this particular aspect of the question, i realized that in most cases the inadequacy of funding from governments makes many innovative polices only good for the shelves and "big talk".
Therefore, i think that the international structures can assist in this direction.If not grants but at least loans that our governments will eventually pay back.
Any way thanks for the teaching you gave me on web 2.0 in Accra.I am Moses Nganwani Tia.Your Rice Value Chain blog winner.
Role of ITC is to provide the package of different ICT tools for e agriculture, while for the stakeholders is to participate in the whole proces at different levels, that is;right from the situation analysis, content development, pre-testing, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Full participation of farmers is to engange them from the beginning and to start from what they know, practical and meaningful for them.
The maini role of ICT is to provide guidelines or orientation and the technical support in terms of right tools, products, systems...etc and relevant information, for example the right and effective infrastructure needed to be in place for other machine/equipments or system to be functional.
The Ministry of Agriculture and/or Animal resources is to have the right agricultural extension information ready to be communicated through different channels, so her team working in agricultural communication/extension and knowledge management should be strong!
For International: the role is to facilitate the learning through e agricultural knowlege sharing, from different corners of the world, for change, new adoption or improvemet.
Dear Mary
In the case of Rwanda, who is leading the process of ICT integration in agriculture? Is it the Ministry of Agriculture ? Do you collaborate with the Ministry of Youth and ICT on this? Have you put in place a specific institutional framework?
Thank you
Ken Lohento
Agriculture is one of the key areas of high priority in the Ministry of ICT and youth, so there is close collaboration of both Ministries, but also with key partners like RDB (Rwanda Development Board) and BSC (Broadcast band and System corparation). For exampme RDB is making sure that the e soko system (for e mails and mobile telephone) works better, and MINAGRI make sure that the commodities related information collection and packaging is effectvely done. The related strategies are jointly developed together.