mawaki chango
| Organization type | Civil Society Organization/NGO |
|---|---|
| Country | Côte d'Ivoire |
Mawaki Chango is a researcher and a consultant, with current main consulting assignment with the Association for Progressive Communications on Internet governance and policy issues in Africa. He recently co-authored a study report on scoping an African Community Informatics framework for the NEPAD and CTA. Blending scholarship and practice, Chango's research interests include digital identity, Internet governance, ICT4D as well as information technologies & the humanities. Chango has also served within Internet governance bodies, including as policy councilor for Internet domain names at ICANN, and as consultant on projects to numerous organizations, including UNESCO, International Development Research Centre, OSIWA (Open Society Initiative for West Africa),etc. He has authored or co-authored a number of scholarly articles and a book chapter on Internet governance, e-government and broadband civic networks. Chango has earned a graduate degree at Pantheon-Sorbonne University in Paris and a PhD degree at Syracuse University in New York state. He speaks French, English and Portuguese.
This member participated in the following Forums
Forum Forum: 2013 CTA ICT OBSERVATORY “Strengthening e-Agriculture Strategies in ACP Countries”
Question 1 (opens 25 Feb.)
Submitted by mawaki chango on Mon, 05/20/2013 - 19:13
Dear all,
Thank you for your contributions on this first day of our discussion.
First of all, please allow me to clarify a little further the general
procedure for a productive discussion here. We should strive to
address the current question put forward as specifically as possible.
By that I mean our responses should articulate elements that will
enable us to formulate a clear answer directly to the specific
question at hand. While you have a total choice over what those
elements (i.e. your response contents) may be, please make sure their
formulation clearly links back to the question --thus, helping the
reader clearly understand in which ways they provide or constitute an
answer to the question.
So far, I have noted some of the replies provide a direct answer to
the question, some other do so more indirectly by, say, listing a
number of positive impacts e-agriculture strategies may have or are
expected to have. In those cases, I take it that the author of the
message implies that those are reasons --albeit not all the reasons,
and maybe not even the main reasons-- why those strategies need to be
put in place. That's the way I'm going to be reading all your posts
over the next two weeks from the perspective of the question it is
meant or expected to address, whether they do so specifically or
indirectly and implicitly. However, the more direct and specific, the
better.
Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
Mawaki
Submitted by mawaki chango on Mon, 05/20/2013 - 19:13
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
Submitted by mawaki chango on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 10:16
Dear all,
Thank you for your contributions on this first day of our discussion.
First of all, please allow me to clarify a little further the general
procedure for a productive discussion here. We should strive to
address the current question put forward as specifically as possible.
By that I mean our responses should articulate elements that will
enable us to formulate a clear answer directly to the specific
question at hand. While you have a total choice over what those
elements (i.e. your response contents) may be, please make sure their
formulation clearly links back to the question --thus, helping the
reader clearly understand in which ways they provide or constitute an
answer to the question.
So far, I have noted some of the replies provide a direct answer to
the question, some other do so more indirectly by, say, listing a
number of positive impacts e-agriculture strategies may have or are
expected to have. In those cases, I take it that the author of the
message implies that those are reasons --albeit not all the reasons,
and maybe not even the main reasons-- why those strategies need to be
put in place. That's the way I'm going to be reading all your posts
over the next two weeks from the perspective of the question it is
meant or expected to address, whether they do so specifically or
indirectly and implicitly. However, the more direct and specific, the
better.
Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
Mawaki
Submitted by mawaki chango on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 10:16
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
Question 6 (opens 6 Mar.)
Submitted by mawaki chango on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 13:44
Dear Mr Riggs and Ken,
You are much welcome. I enjoyed the facilitation for various reasons, not the least of which is the wealth of, as well as thirst for, knowledge among the disussants.
If any of you, all participants, wanted to get in touch with me for any reason, you are welcome to do so using my contact details below.
Warm regards,
Mawaki
-----
Dr. Mawaki Chango
Consultant
Research - Policy Advice - Project Management
Internet Governance, ICT4D & Identity Management
email: [email protected]
Cell phones:
+225 4448 7764 (Cote d'Ivoire)
+ 223 026 40 70 555 (Ghana)
+ 228 973 77779 (Togo)
Twitter: @chamawak
You are much welcome. I enjoyed the facilitation for various reasons, not the least of which is the wealth of, as well as thirst for, knowledge among the disussants.
If any of you, all participants, wanted to get in touch with me for any reason, you are welcome to do so using my contact details below.
Warm regards,
Mawaki
-----
Dr. Mawaki Chango
Consultant
Research - Policy Advice - Project Management
Internet Governance, ICT4D & Identity Management
email: [email protected]
Cell phones:
+225 4448 7764 (Cote d'Ivoire)
+ 223 026 40 70 555 (Ghana)
+ 228 973 77779 (Togo)
Twitter: @chamawak
Submitted by mawaki chango on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 19:21
Dear All,
As this two-week e-debate comes to end, I would like to thank you for you vibrant engagement and contributions, which has made the deiscussion facilitation the easiest part for me. So now comes the hardest... In the next few hours I will start culling your/our posts and replies to the six questions debated for reporting purposes in order to draft the debate report for CTA. From Lome, on this ninth day of March in the year 2013 at 18h18 UTC, please accept my abundant thanks and warm wishes. Have a great weekend with your loved ones, and all the best.
Mawaki
As this two-week e-debate comes to end, I would like to thank you for you vibrant engagement and contributions, which has made the deiscussion facilitation the easiest part for me. So now comes the hardest... In the next few hours I will start culling your/our posts and replies to the six questions debated for reporting purposes in order to draft the debate report for CTA. From Lome, on this ninth day of March in the year 2013 at 18h18 UTC, please accept my abundant thanks and warm wishes. Have a great weekend with your loved ones, and all the best.
Mawaki
Question 5 (opens 5 Mar.)
Submitted by mawaki chango on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 12:18
Alas funding sources being foreign seems to be the "new" normal for so many people in Africa --and maybe in the whole developing world? As we think about those challenges, we should do so with the constraint to create as much as possible self-sustaining economies not only based on domestic production but also based on trade and foreign investments -- but foreign aid is not foreign investment, or it is a hidden, perverted one made in some cases by some foreign governments to create markets for their private sectors. No one can be self-sufficient in the sense of producing all they need, but at least they can build a self-sustaining economy by striving to reach the appropriate levels of domestic production and consumption, export, import, domestic entrepreneurship and foreign investments. As far as I'm concerned, those are the main variables that drive development. I realize that many countries in the developing world are mismanaged, or their state building process was not even a viable one to begin with, and as a result the state/government may need budgetary support (in the hope that such situation is not structural but transitory). It then becomes even more crucial that those governments seek to unleash the ingenuity and productivity of their people by creating the right incentives and stretegies and frameworks (without the government spending a lot of money trying to become an economic entrepreneur or producer itself).
Every now and then I hear about African university students or professors going on a strike in order to improve their working conditions, etc. Maybe if we give enough thought into organizing universities so that in addition to being "intellectual developpers" they also are fully involved as economic actors, we might avoid having to wait for international agencies for some tasks. Why units could not be formed in our academias to play a more neutral role of providing providing assessment and evaluation services for our governments' policies as well as helping governments upfront to make evidence-based policies? And be even paid for that through research grants, etc.? And give the opportunity to qualified students to design and undertake research projects that address their countries' problems, with some assurance that their results will be consiered (maybe challenged but still considered) in related decisions that are made for the country-- as opposed to having their works be even more accessible to their colleagues in the "North" than to their national peers?
Well, I started this message with the above subject line, thinking to myself that sounds too grand for the 3 or 4 line observation I had in mind; that sounds like a book title. But let me stop here before it becomes one. I'm not sure whether this message can be ascribed to the discussion facilitator. Whatever the case, I am Mawaki Chango and I approve this message :)
Submitted by mawaki chango on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 11:18
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.
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.
Submitted by mawaki chango on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 17:19
It does appear obvious to me that the government wouldn't have any role to play at evaluation phase, neither in the ICT nor (more surprinsingly) in the agriculture department. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks
Question 4 (opens 4 Mar.)
Submitted by mawaki chango on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 22:20
Thanks Emligot, Eugene and Towela for your much appreciated wishes.
I would like to highlight two persistent problems that have been pointed out in the latest messages above.
Several of the issues raised by Towela pertain to what we like to call in the francophone context the continuity of the state, which follows the premise of a (fully) functional state. In other words, we are facing the problem of state building in developing countries (particularly in Africa, from my perspective). How can we mitigate the adverse effects of letting politics and its fluctuations drive all the agenda? Should we have strong and autonomous government agencies whose mandates do not depend on the political season (or party in power)? (is there any such example in your country?) May we reasonably hope for Think Tanks or other non-governmental structures credibles enough to provide a source of legitimacy for evidence-based policies? What would be the funding structure to make that work? Do you know of examples of such structures in ACP countries?
Regarding leadership as outlined by Anju (and also by Towela with the examples of Heads of State taking up the Agriculture portfolio), that is key. We are dealing with countries with very limited resources and competing demnds, where governments theoretically commit to agendas and yet one has all the difficulties to get them follow through when it comes to implementation or taking actions. So having a recognizable champion sometimes makes a significant difference.
I would like to highlight two persistent problems that have been pointed out in the latest messages above.
Several of the issues raised by Towela pertain to what we like to call in the francophone context the continuity of the state, which follows the premise of a (fully) functional state. In other words, we are facing the problem of state building in developing countries (particularly in Africa, from my perspective). How can we mitigate the adverse effects of letting politics and its fluctuations drive all the agenda? Should we have strong and autonomous government agencies whose mandates do not depend on the political season (or party in power)? (is there any such example in your country?) May we reasonably hope for Think Tanks or other non-governmental structures credibles enough to provide a source of legitimacy for evidence-based policies? What would be the funding structure to make that work? Do you know of examples of such structures in ACP countries?
Regarding leadership as outlined by Anju (and also by Towela with the examples of Heads of State taking up the Agriculture portfolio), that is key. We are dealing with countries with very limited resources and competing demnds, where governments theoretically commit to agendas and yet one has all the difficulties to get them follow through when it comes to implementation or taking actions. So having a recognizable champion sometimes makes a significant difference.