Hi Pierre

Thank you for your post:

You said:

 

In remote rural areas of Yemen or Morocco or in Africa or in Asia, who are those who can access and use ICT? How producer organizations can make sure that ICT is bridging the knowledge gap for all members and not only for those who can have access and use ICT?

I hate to be be a pessmis but I believe that this is to some degree unavoidable. T is creating gaps in all nations (though I believe that their are more factors that act as barriers in developing nations).    While it would be ideal if everyon could adopt and benifit, but I think it might be more realistic to try and target one person per family- focussing on younger people (especially women) to get more long-term return on the eductional effort.   Where do you draw the line of what IT is supposed to do- Frankly speaking if there is no electricity, then, I think that ICT is not the right method to use. I think that mentoring and using peers for education and dissemination of information would be more appropriate and perhaps using ICT for HUBS of communicators who would deliver content to people without access.   Cheers   Peter

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

 

Hi John,

 

Thank you for your comment which I seemed to have missed (not having a quick thread sort options makes it a biot confusing to keep track of posts at times) . 

 

I don't want to sound like a complete skeptic but I'm not convinced that all governments are interested in promoting self-reliant and independent rural cooperatives and producer organizations . Many governments in developing countries seem more obsessed with control and submission.

We seem to be in agreement, as I posted above:

I am pessimistic that a sudden spike in governement interest will be sustained enough to have the long term impact that the farmers need. I beleive that this expertise and assistance will need top come from NGOs, NPOs and the local communities. Government assistance is too prone to shift with the political winds.

My following posts aslo show my skepticism in government action.

 

Cheers

 

Peter

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 Marie-Helene

 

Thabnk you for your comments. Generally, I am skeptical of government initiatives (for various reasons such as lack of political will for follow through, lack of consistency, corruption, inefficient use of resources, and the whole slew of bureacractic complaints).  I believe that government can be effective in some roles and tp be more specific to the question.

 

Governments could provide:

1) One time grants with no extension/no annual expiry. (to avoid waste at the end of bidget season and to encourage financial autonomy)

 

2) Declaring information networks to a be a universal public service and forcing IT companies to supprt outlying rural areas as part of a requirement/condition for licensing in the lucrative urban areas. (This worked very well in developing telephone and mail service in other countries.) For profit companies need "firm guidance" to help them produce all those "we care commercials". Developing nations have demonstrated time and time again that they have lucrative and vibrant IT markets, human capital to develop it, and companies have been able to cheery pick their services areas. Strong legislation to ensure that there is not a growing IT divide is necessary with an emphasis addressing the digita; divide that is increasing within developing nations. 

from Marie-Helene

Often, research results are not published in a form that can be readily used by producer organizations and their members.  I would say therefore, that governments should help producer organizations with the content that can be communicated via ICT rather than in the hardware itself.  

 

I agree that governemnt can play a role in developing materials BUT I believe that government on the whole woprks too slowly and ICT content should be developed from both local knowledge and more flexible sources. Now if a government were willing to empower a small IT/knowledge base team of experts with developing content and gove them a free hand, then I think you would have hit upon a great solution (but that brings me back to my lack of faith in Gov organizations to move quickly and effiently and I think that NOPs or NGOs would be more effective).

 

I think in general, the role of governemnt should be at the policy level with impacts that target not specifically ICT, but ICT in rural areas (above suggestion). I think that industry (when properly motivated), NPOs and NGOs are much more efficient at getting things done.  

 

Cheers

 

Peter

 

I think that Fatima has covered most of the points, so I would like to go at this from a different perspective. As you may have noticed from my other posts, my focus has been on eductaion and empowerment (the two go hand-in-hand).

 

I think that the primarly role of governement should be in providing basic infrastructure (roads, rail, water, IT infrasturcuture) and a legal and commercial system for producers to thrive in. Beyond start up grants government should NOT be involved. Frankly speaking, I believe that the whoel purpose of this exercise is to help  to nuture independent self-sustaning producer groups. Regular involvement of the government presents many pitfalls on the route to this goal; corruption, dependency, lack of respect for local knowledge, to name a few.

I am pessimistic that a sudden spike in governement interest will be sustained enough to have the long term impact that the farmers need. I beleive that this expertise and assistance will need top come from NGOs, NPOs and the local communities. Government assistance is too prone to shift with the political winds.

 

Regards,

 

peter

 

Some interesting comments have been made about traceability and post harvest waste. Primarily, for post harvest, I think that that ICT can be a good tool for education for post harvest storage (reduce waste and improve safety), perhaps in the future also for alleopathic considerations in storage. Most importatntly, I see it being a good tool for getting inforamtion about getting produce to market effiently. However, the most important role I think would be at disemminating information about what are the most cost effective and market applicable post harvest chemicals for farmers to use. 

 

Traceabilty, is an interesting issue but I am not sure how appropriate/applicable it is on a local scale. I am not familiar with tracibilty issues in developing nations. From the perspective of Japanese food saftey, for Japanese companies (espceially importing to Japan) it means completely controling the process (COMPLETE - total management systems) from the "farm stage" stage right up to domestic delivery. So althought tracibilty is becoming a more important food safety issue, I believe that more and more importanting nations will look to "more complete" food management systems that cut the local producers out (in favor of large agricultural "factiories" and seek to control more of the process. So tracilbilty fro the global market is not such a "key" issue. 

 

Peter

Thank you for your comment.

In light of your question: how does ICT enable climate change adaptation in high risk, vulnerable communities.

I think that ICT could play these roles:

1) Pre disaster eductaion

As we have seen time and time again, even the best warnng systems are inadequete when the people affected do not heed the warnings. (they sometimes want to "watch" the disaster, or try to proctect their homes, or evacuate their possesions, etc).

2) Warning system

3) Short term disaster relief support

ICT could disseminate information regarding disater relief, and impending dangers, (e.g. after shocks, water contanination, etc

4) long term recovery efforts

 education for replanting, information about long term risks (e.g. food storage) etc.

 

I see Pre disaster eductaion to be the most important because climate change is putting NEW areas at risk. I think that leads to people being more likely to underestimate the risks. 

 

peter

Hello Pierre

Thank you for your reply. I think that you raise an interesting point: At the same time how can ICT value what farmers already know?

I believe that not many posters have touched on this issue, and have looked at ICT as the delvery system of some better "outside" or external solution. I think that the social dimesion of incorporating ICT has been somewhat overlooked in the our discussions. 

I believe that without recognizing the value of the farmers knowledge and local traditions, any ICt project will be at best slowed, and at worst, ignored. I read with some dismay the use of the term, "techo-peasant", which I found to be quite derogatory. How can something that does not respect the people that are involved being in any empowering.

So I turn back to your querstion: 

At the same time how can ICT value what farmers already know?

I think that this is a quite a simple matter (at least in theory) but it is simply to involve the farmers at every step of the process. Farmers can be the "players" in video, the voices in broadcasts. Their knowlegde can be shared with other farmers in addition to the "outside" knowledge so that this is a cooperative effort which while also leading to a wider education and knowlwedge platform, will also empower the farmers because they are part of a joint solution top the challenges of their locale.

++++++++++++++++

Once farmers get more control over ICT, I think it can be an effective tool of cutting out the middleman. If farmers are able to directly discuss and negotiate prices using ICT (again further empowerment), then they may be able to get better pricing, particularly on items that may be less susceptible to market fluctuations (such as farm equipment).

Naturally, the local knowledge leading to cooperative purchases would be essential (and further empowering) in determining what was needed and what prices the cooperatives could manage. Management of producer groups could be further democratized by ICT.

 

Regards,

 

Peter