Few points on the business and finance -

1. Various Partnerships - The business model has to consider different alliances in various fields e.g. partnership with telecom partner, electronics manufacturer, educational institutes, NGOs, government, established rural brands, engineering contractors and so many...!

I quote Santosh Ostwal from his previous comment because it is so important. My recommendation to decision makers is to embrace business. Encourage investment from large private enterprise as once markets and economies are established it is these enterprises which will benefit. Why should they not invest early? But decision makers and governments need to maintain control of the objectives and clearly set codes of practice and a public, transparent and agreed community centred approach. 

There is no "one size fits all" solution. Each deployment of ICT, and each farmer, community, region or country is different with specific needs. This makes it safer to deal with large enterprise as the possibility of a single, massive monopoly is reduced due to the diversity of the sector. Yet if enterprises ivest and work together, they can drive wider adoption of ICT tools and supports, to the benefit of all.

Thanks to e-Agriculture forum for arranging this discussion, it has been very worthwhile.

Very interesting to read Lee and Uche's contributions. I would add IBM Bluemix/Watson to the list of SaaS and Infrastructure as a Service providers already looking to agriculture as potential growth areas for them as ICT providers. This is a very positive step, but sometimes individual research or start-up projects in agri-tech fear partnering with larger companies; this can be inefficient and can result in waste of time, money, effort and expertise. While remaining aware of the risks of losing control to a larger corporation, it is still valuable to engage with experienced global players, to perhaps benefit from tools or services they may be able to provide.

Lee also correctly mentions working with other industries and sectors. Ths is hugely important and relevant. For example in the energy industry, there is an established business model of rewarding consumers for their usage data. In agriculture, there could be a similar business model where farmers are rewarded for supplying their usage expereinces to enable researchers build wider data sets for evidence based directives.

Uche's vision is possible from a technological point of view, and is encouraged by global policy initiatives in some areas - for example, One Health initiative promoting the links between animal and human health. I would strongly advise though, that disease and health surveillance cannot rely on an app or ICT tool alone. In my expereince and research there is NO substitute for conversations to gain the real and often tacit knowledge from farmers and vets (and people in general). This can seem like a barrier or as a difficulty, but from a rural community point of view, it should be seen as creating support jobs in agriculture, and increasing farmers' well being, mental health through stress reduction and contribute to sustainable family farms as the next generation sees farming as a respected enterprise.

The magic of ICT is to store, aggregate, make available for analysis, visualise and disseminate widley, the collected agricultural data and knowledge.

Dear all,

Santosh Ostwal set out 16 contraints in the previous discussion which perfectly confirmed and expanded on the expereinces of others in the discussion. In answer to this question "How should the use of ICTs best be integrated in resilience programmes or projects?" we can use those constraints as a great starting point.

We must acknowledge that every actor along the value chain, from farmer through to consumer and government, has a set of requirements which ICT solutions and tools MUST address for that actor. So a fully collaborative and relationship based approach is required. It is complex, but it is possible through a determined effort of the expertise available.

ICT producsts or services must be seen only as tools - not as the answer in themselves. The knowledge of farmers must be respected and built on for sustainable farming communities; food quality must be reported in near real-time to government agencies to protect consumers and public health; traders & processors must focus on waste reduction and prevention through data/information sharing and trading.

We know the contraints; we just have to work together to acknowledge and address them. Richard Heeks described a benchmarking and prioritising process, there are many of these and they must be used before any deployment.

This forum proves that as a community we are running out of excuses - so much knowledge and expertise exists to address any challenging ICT implementation. Do we have the courage to work in broad coalitions to ensure even wider success? Again, it is great to see examples already in place (NRENs etc.). We can build on these for a resiliant and sustainable farming future supported by e-Agriculture.