Strengthening Grass-Roots Participation in … Report | October 2013 Strengthening Grass-Roots...

Study Report | October 2013

Strengthening Grass-Roots Participation in Agricultural and Rural Development Policy

Processes through ICTs

Strengthening Grassroots Participation in ARD Policy Processes through ICTs Oct 2013

2

Strengthening Grass-Roots Participation in Agricultural and Rural Development Policy

Processes through ICTs

THE NEPAD E-AFRICA PROGRAMME

in collaboration with

THE TECHNICAL CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL COOPERATION (CTA)

Prepared by Michael Gurstein

Edited by: Towela Nyirenda-Jere

http://www.cta.int/en


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 7

1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 12

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 12

POLICY PROCESSES ........................................................................................................................................... 13

COMMUNITY-ORIENTED APPROACHES .............................................................................................................. 13

2. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN POLICY PROCESSES ....................................................... 15

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 15

DIASPORA ......................................................................................................................................................... 16

RURAL POOR AND RURAL WOMEN ................................................................................................................... 17

YOUTH ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

VILLAGE LEVEL PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................................... 21

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

3. ICTS IN AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY PROCESSES– FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 23

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 23

FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................................... 23

(NON-ICT RELATED AND SPECIFICALLY THE CAADP) POLICY PROCESSES LACK VISIBILITY IN THE ICT

COMMUNITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 23

GRASSROOTS PARTICIPATION REQUIRES FACILITATION .................................................................................... 25

STAKEHOLDER GROUPINGS ARE NOT HOMOGENOUS ......................................................................................... 26

LIMITED INTERNET ACCESS IN RURAL AREAS IMPACTS ON PARTICIPATION ....................................................... 27

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROCESSES .............................................................................................................. 29

RURAL EMPLOYMENT POLICY PROCESSES ......................................................................................................... 29

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH POLICY PROCESSES ................................................................................................ 30

MARKET ACCESS POLICY PROCESSES ................................................................................................................ 31

THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................................. 31

LIMITED USE OF ICTS FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................... 32

RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 34

USE UNIVERSAL SERVICES FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED INITIATIVES .................................................. 34

PROMOTE OPEN ACCESS-OPEN GOVERNMENT DATA ....................................................................................... 34

DEVELOP OR ENHANCE ICT-BASED EXTENSION SERVICES ............................................................................... 34

CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RURAL EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................ 35

ESTABLISH COMMUNITY-ORIENTED RESEARCH NETWORKS ............................................................................. 35

ESTABLISH COMMUNITY-DRIVEN KNOWLEDGE-BASES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................ 35

DEVELOP SUSTAINABLE MODELS FOR MARKET INFORMATION SYSTEMS ........................................................ 36

STRENGTHEN INTERMEDIARY ORGANISATIONS ................................................................................................ 36

FACILITATE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION THROUGH ICTS ....................................................................................... 36

INSTITUTE MULTI-SECTORIAL, MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PLATFORMS .................................................................. 36

TOWARDS A COMMUNITY-ORIENTED FRAMEWORK FOR ICT4ARD IN AFRICA ................................................ 38

OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 38


4

A COMMUNITY-ORIENTED FRAMEWORK FOR ICT4ARD POLICY ..................................................................... 40

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................... 44

OPERATIONALISING THE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................. 44

4. CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD .............................................................................................. 46


5

ACRONYMS

AEC African Economic Community

AfDB African Development Bank

ALIN The Arid Lands Information Network

ARD Agriculture and Rural Development

ASARECA

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central

Africa

AUC African Union Commission

CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme

CEMAC Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa

CEN-SAD Community of Sahel-Saharan States

CIC Community Information Centre

CILSS Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

CTA ACP–EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

EAC East African Community

EC European Community

ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

ES Extension Service

ESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

GDP Gross Domestic Product

Gbps Gigabits Per Second

GPS Global Positioning by Satellite

GSM Global System for Mobile Communications

ICT Information and communication technologies

ICT4ARD ICT for Agricultural and Rural Development

ICT4D ICT for Development

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development


6

IFI International Financial Institution

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development

IGO Inter-governmental Organization

ITU International Telecommunications Union

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action to Climate Change

NARS National Agriculture Research System

NEPAD New Economic Partnership for African Development

NPCA NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency

NSF Networking Support Function

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

POP Point of Presence

PRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

PTT Postal, Telephone and Telegraph Service

REC Regional Economic Commissions

ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System

SACU Southern African Customs Union

SADC Southern African Development Community

SME Small and Medium Sized Enterprise

SMS Short Message Service

SRO Sub-Regional Organization

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNESCWA United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

UASFs Universal Access and Service Funds

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union

WiMAX Worldwide Inter-operability for Microwave Access


7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the Technical Centre for

Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) considered the establishment of a cross-sectoral

and multi-stakeholder framework for the African continent with the purpose of enabling

grassroots rural community participation in agriculture and rural development (ARD) policy

processes. This is to address the perceived issue of a lack of grassroots participation in ARD

policy processes using ICT tools to enable a cost-effective and forward looking response.

The Framework) is concerned to ‘assist African countries to develop and implement policies

and strategies that would enable the agricultural sector [in Africa] to respond rapidly to the

growing demands for agricultural production and output…’ (NEPAD RFP, 2012). There is

therefore a need to understand how such a framework ‘can best be established, managed

and used for the benefit of those working in agricultural research and development (R&D)

and information and communications technology for development (ICT4D) in Sub-Saharan

Africa’ (NEPAD RFP, 2012: 6).

This study includes an overview of the context for agricultural and rural development (ARD),

with a specific interest in agricultural research and development (R&D) and ICT initiatives,

with the aim of understanding the gap to be filled by a community-oriented framework for

grassroots policy participation at continental and regional levels (regional reports are

available that present findings with respect to selected countries within each Sub-Saharan

African region). This paper discusses the appropriate framework for the operationalization of

a community-oriented approach to policy-making, pointing to the importance of extensive

stakeholder collaboration amongst universities, research agencies, ARD advocacy agencies

and others in enabling and facilitating involvement of rural and agricultural communities. For

advances in the grassroots agricultural sector to be realised, a community-oriented

framework should concentrate on enabling participation in policy processes by among others

smallholder farmers and fishing communities and currently marginalized stakeholder groups

such as women and youth.

Improved access to knowledge of ARD issues, particularly the value of agricultural R&D to

rural farmers; and challenges of market access, rural employment and climate change is

vital to making community policy engagement possible and valuable for rural communities.

Hence a primary recommendation is that providing additional ICT research, supports and

training for intermediary groups to facilitate their work in enabling policy inputs from and to

the grassroots is of primary importance along with sharing of ARD and agricultural R&D

knowledge are crucial foundations for grassroots inputs to policy-making.

In the ideal framework for policy engagement, participatory governance is the foundation of

the community-oriented framework, while stakeholders contribute their particular capacities

and knowledge inputs towards policy formulation. The framework is supported by basic

systems and procedures, and mobilisation of ICT, in order to advance access to knowledge

for policy-making. As stakeholder relations mature, they can produce an integrated

community-oriented system which promotes policies for rural development.

This project was not organized as a strict "feasibility study" in that the intent was to

determine the usefulness and overall best approach for developing the Community –oriented

framework within the context of ARD policy development rather than for example, to

determine the overall costs for such a network or a cost-benefit appraisal of such a

development. That being the case the project overall included a variety of methods including

extensive reviews of the primarily web-based literature; and extensive interviews with actual


8

or potential stakeholders in policy processes including government officials at continental,

regional and national levels as well as representatives of intermediary and grassroots

organizations, civil society and not-for- profits, researchers and others.

The study includes four regional studies--East, West, Central and Southern Africa drawing

on the skills and experience of consultants active in those regions as well as this "synthesis"

report that has been prepared drawing on the results of the regional reports, supplemented

by selected country visits and interviews at the regional and continental levels. The regional

reports are available as separate documents.

Community-Oriented approaches in the Context of Existing ARD Policy Frameworks

The largest segment of the world’s poor are the over 800 million subsistence farmers,

herders, fishers, migrant workers, craftsmen and indigenous peoples who live in rural

environments. Eighty two per-cent of the rural sub-Saharan African population live in

communities where agriculture is a major source of growth, accounting for 32% of their

countries GDP on average. 1 In the SADC region, many millions of the 277 million regional

population are smallholder farmers or grassroots communities dependent on agriculture. The

contribution of rural communities to policy-making is therefore central to ARD in the medium

to long term, as policy-making is a crucial component of the broader development

landscape. Grassroots communities however, are often resistant to policy in which they have

had no say; or they may be unaware of the resources being applied within a particular policy

framework; or the policy may be a mismatch with their specific needs as farmers.

A primary issue of concern in the African context is the development and delivery of the

range of services required for enhancement of the living standards of those in rural

environments. With governments, communities and individuals all having access to limited

financial and human resources, there is a need to find ways of leveraging existing resources

to provide a broader range and higher quality and quantity of services in such areas. These

services include education and training, primary health care services, and support services

for the range of economic activities in rural areas. Moreover, with the increasingly

widespread extension of ICT infrastructures through broadband, wireless and mobile

communications, there is a need to identify strategies for optimizing the use of these

infrastructures for the enhancement of service delivery and local development.

Much of the attention by ICT oriented policy makers, program designers, private sector and

social entrepreneurs has been concerned with responding to opportunities presented in

urban areas and yet the need may be greatest in the rural areas where there is a highly

significant absence of many services required for personal well-being and effective social

and economic participation. As well, policy and program frameworks may not recognize the

distinct nature and requirements to achieve socially and economically sustainable ICT

supported services in the rural areas, often because of a lack of experience with the

appropriate means for this kind of approach and an absence of models and strategies for

these types of initiatives. And in too many instances, the lack of these developments or their

failure in implementation can be attributed to the attempt in research and educational

institutions to replicate approaches drawn from either urban experiences or experiences and

knowledge derived from implementations and practices in Developed Countries.

1 http://www.sacau.org/hosting/sacau/SacauWeb.nsf/Programme_Financing_Agriculture_Southern_Africa.pdf


9

As an instance of community-oriented approaches, Community Informatics (CI) provides a

basis for cost effective service delivery in rural areas by focusing on the utilization and

development of capacities and skills in local communities as a means for enhancing and

leveraging technical and external human resources. By integrating technical infrastructures

with community and social processes it is possible to link rural areas much more seamlessly

into national service delivery systems while developing local capacity and supporting the

local social and economic development in rural areas.

In this sense, CI represents a new but grounded approach to the design of government

policies, programs and services and to enhancing local development through small

enterprise entrepreneurship, training and capacity building. In order to promote and develop

a CI approach however, it is necessary to proceed by means of multistakeholder initiatives

since there is a need to ensure that the grassroots is able to influence and co-develop

strategies and programs with governments and NGO’s; that the private sector understands

the opportunities and risks associated with investment at the grassroots level; and that there

is a base of research and training on how CI may be most effectively utilized in specific local

contexts as through university and college based research and training and the design of

specific curricula in support of this approach and these initiatives.

The key element of a Community-oriented approach is that objectives such as the inclusion

of grassroots voices in policy processes are approached in an integrated and holistic fashion

in the sense that there is recognition of the need to link community processes and

community enablement quite directly and iteratively with the extension of technology

opportunities. Thus for example, it is not sufficient simply to make available the means to

register opinions concerning a policy issue via mobiles and SMS. In an instance such as

this it may for example, be unclear to the respondents precisely what the nature of the issue

is on which commenting and equally it may be unclear to the recipients precisely what the

meaning of the response from the individual respondent might be. A community-oriented

approach would link the facility for registering comments with a process of providing

information to the grassroots and particularly to organizations working with an on behalf of

the grassroots so that they may in turn work with the grassroots to ensure that the responses

provided are as informed and meaningful as possible. Equally these organizations would

work with the policy agencies to help them to use the communications technologies in such

a way as to optimize the use of these resources in obtaining useful feedback and comment

from the grassroots as for example in helping the design and implementation of the format of

the consultation process to ensure an appropriate use of the technology, an effective

implementation of the technology at the grassroots level, the use of language and

terminology appropriate to being responded to at the grassroots and so on. Thus the

technology is only one element (but of course a very significant one) in being able to realize

participation by the grassroots in policy processes.2

Key Findings and Recommendations

Findings

2 For extended discussions in this area see for example D. Thakur, "ICTs and Community Participation: An Indicative

Framework", Journal of Community Informatics, Vol 5, No 1 (2009); F de Cindio "Guidelines for Designing Deliberative

Digital Habitats: Learning from e-Participation for Open Data Initiatives" Journal of Community Informatics, Vol 8, No 2

(2012) and a range of related materials available in this journal and elsewhere.

http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/28




10

(Non-ICT related and specifically the CAADP) Policy processes lack visibility in the

ICT community.

Grassroots participation in policy processes requires facilitation

Stakeholder groupings are not homogenous

Limited Internet access in rural areas impacts on participation

Intermediary organisations have an important role to play

Limited use of ICTs for citizen participation

Recommendations

Use of Universal Services Funds for Community-oriented initiatives

Promote Open Access-Open Government Data as an element in grassroots policy

Develop or enhance ICT-based Extension Services

Use ICTs to create opportunities for Rural employment

Establish community-oriented Research Networks

Establish community-driven knowledge-bases for climate change

Develop sustainable models for Market Information Systems

Strengthen intermediary organizations as necessary links between the grassroots

and policy processes

Facilitate citizen participation through ICTs

Institute Multi-sectorial, Multi-stakeholder platforms for policy processes

Study limitations

The results of this report are limited by the vastness of the requirements to provide a

comprehensive overview of ICTs, grassroots and policy development in Africa. Each of

these components could in itself have absorbed all of the resources available for this project

and much more. As well the realities of what we were examining are in a state of

accelerated flux as technologies are evolving; infrastructure is being extended; policy

initiatives discussed in this report are being developed regionally, nationally and sub-

nationally and in a rapidly proliferating range of sectors.

As a consequence this report and the research which underlies it should be seen as giving

only a partial picture of the reality on the ground and if possible followed up with more

detailed studies both national and sectorial.

The implementation of an ICT enabled Community -oriented grassroots policy initiative can,

as with so much of ICT4D activities only proceed through experimentation and experience

on the ground; a project or activity is initiated and either succeeds in which case (hopefully)

it is replicated with additional resources being made available, or as is so frequently the case

the project fails but lessons are captured as input to the next initiative. And thus initiatives

proceed rhyzomatically, step by step, learning and developing in increments. This is the way

that successful grassroots initiatives and one can only hope that those with the interest and

the resources draw lessons and learning from this report and others in this area to make the

investments needed to begin these processes.

The study was framed in the context of Community Informatics as an underlying construct

for the integration of ICTs in ARD. While the principles and ideas behind Community

Informatics are clear, it became evident as the study progressed that this terminology was


11

not well understood by stakeholders, including those in the ICT sector. As such, more

generic terminology in the form of Community-oriented approaches was adopted.


12

1. Background and Context

A team of independent consultants was chosen by the e-Africa Programme3 of the NEPAD

Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency)4 with the support of the Technical

Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)5 to assess the feasibility of creating a

Community Informatics6 framework as a support to the range of policy processes currently

enabling and directing activities in the Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) sector in

Africa.

Through the African Union (AU)7 and as operationalized by the NEPAD Agency , a variety

of sectorial and other processes are being put in place for reforming development policy

planning and particularly at the national level. Comprehensive multi-stakeholder8 and multi-

disciplinary frameworks for development are being put in place in Agriculture, responses to

climate change and human resource development among others.

As "multi-stakeholder" processes, there is the continuing need to develop appropriate

strategies, mechanisms and frameworks for the broad inclusion of grassroots and

community-based participation/voices along with other stakeholders. Among the most

advanced of these overall efforts within continental Africa and one that is specifically

endorsed and supported at the AU and African Head of State level is the Comprehensive

African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)9 with which a significant component

(but not the entirety) of this study will be engaged.

Objectives of the study

The intent of this study10 was to collect information concerning multi-disciplinary and multi-

stakeholder inputs into national and regional policy processes concerning Agriculture and

Rural Development specifically focussing on grassroots and community-based participation ;

to analyse and identify strategies for the use of Information and Communications

Technologies (ICTs) to support the process of these inputs by grassroots actors; and to

examine the use of ICTs to enhance the participation of grassroots actors in support of the

realization of objectives in certain specific issue areas. The issue areas which were used as

the cases for the purposes of this study are:

1. rural employment

2. climate change

3. agricultural research

4. market access

Specifically the study objectives were to:

3 http://www.Eafricacommission.Org 4 http:// Www.NEPAD.Org/ 5 http://www.Cta.Int 6 http:// En.Wikipedia.Org/Wiki/Community_Informatics 7 http:// http://www.Au.Int/ 8http://Unfccc.Int/Files/Adaptation/Methodologies_For/Vulnerability_And_Adaptation/Application/Pdf/Multistakeholder_Pr

ocesses.Pdf . These multistakeholder processes initially were developed in environmental management areas but have

recently migrated to a range of areas where there is a need for inclusion of a wide range of actors in the resolution of

complex problems. 9 http:// Www.NEPAD-CAADP.Net/ 10 Study terms of Reference


13

1. identify key players, areas of focus, possible means of enhancing efficiency and

effectiveness, challenges being faced and gaps in the current ARD policy processes

particularly as they relate to grassroots actors and the ICT supports for these

processes; and the role that Community-oriented approaches can play in this overall

policy framework.

2. determine the appropriate scope, extent and priority areas for implementation of

national, regional and continental ICT supported Community-oriented ARD

mechanisms or frameworks and the appropriate governance structures and

strategies required to operationalize the identified mechanisms.

3. identify the priority areas for research, content development and interaction in relation

to ICT4D as it pertains to ARD and determine suitable platforms for knowledge and

information exchange to support the identified mechanisms (needs analysis and

functional requirements).

4. provide an overview of a proposed Community-oriented Framework as a support to

ARD and other policy processes

Policy Processes

We are concerned with "policy processes" in this study.11 A policy process is an inter-

institutional activity involving a variety of institutional and non-institution based actors

interacting towards a common goal which is government policy i.e. frameworks governing

governmental action, legislation and program and budget development. Our model of a

policy process is one which includes the entire range of those involved in, or being impacted

by the ultimate policy outcome; and particularly those groups which may, because of their

broader social marginalization be overlooked in conventional processes and here we include

youth, women and those at the grassroots. Thus, when we are discussing "gaps" in

stakeholder participation in a policy process we are referring to gaps in the broad base of

inclusion in this process.

Policy Stakeholders are individuals, groups or organizations who have an interest in the

policy being formulated. They also represent different interests and bring different agendas

to the table. Multi-stakeholder ICT policymaking is an emerging norm. Among the reasons

why multi-stakeholder policymaking is deemed important are: 1) it promotes inclusiveness

and equity in policy and implementation; 2) it expands the analytical capability to address

policy issues; 3) it promotes grass-roots mobilization and participation; 4) it promotes the

development of focused and holistic action plans; and 5) it fosters the sharing of skills and

innovation. 12

Community-oriented approaches

Community Informatics (CI) is a community-oriented approach that is concerned with

information and communication technology (ICT) as it supports social, cultural and economic

development within grassroots communities. Community informatics as a field of practice

11 Cf. Zimmermann, R.; Brüntrup, M.; Kolavalli, S.; And Flaherty, K., “Agricultural Policies In Sub-Saharan Africa:

Understanding And Improving Participatory Policy Processes In APRM And CAADP “Deutsches Institut Für

Entwicklungspolitik Agricultural Policies In Sub-Saharan Africa Understanding CAADP And Aprm Policy Processes

Research Project, Bonn. .2009 12 United Nations Asian And Pacific Training Centre For Information And Communication Technology For Development

(ApcICT), " ICT For Development Policy, Process And Governance" ApcICT Briefing Note No. 2, 2010

http://www.UnapcICT.Org/News/Aboutus/Programmes/Research/Briefingnote-2-Web.Pdf


14

includes those concerned with ensuring ICT access and use at the grassroots level; NGOs

who support and facilitate these grassroots practitioners; private sector suppliers of the

hardware, software and connectivity that is used in communities to support their

development activities; and governments who provide the regulatory, programme and

financial framework that enables the process of grassroots based development. Most

importantly, community informatics is concerned to support grassroots/community initiatives

in self-organized and locally empowered development.13

Grassroots ICT networks and networking have become a primary tool being deployed to

support development, particularly in Africa, including examples of telecentre networks such

as for example Siyafunda in South Africa14 and other networks such as the network of Living

Labs15 supported by the South Africa Finland Partnership (SAFIPA). A limitation of most

current development oriented ICT networks in the African context is that they are for the

most part organized around and in support of the activities of certain special interest

professional groups. These networks have been successful in promoting the interests of

these groups but have been less successful in mobilizing developmental activities across

sectorial and professional interest lines, and in delivery of real benefits to grassroots

communities.

There is now a widespread understanding that effective and sustaining development can

only take place when there is both a firm foundation and sustainability at the grassroots, as

well as a suitable framework of regulation, programmes and funding support available to

support and enable grassroots communities. Thus for development to occur the process

requires both active and effective processes bottom-up as well as top-down.

As an example, in the very remote regions of Highland Borneo, a community-oriented

approach has provided the framework within which the indigenous population has been able

to move from a circumstance of subsistence small scale agriculture within a highly isolated

environment to one where there is now a diversified economy including eco-tourism,

knowledge industry support and specialized agriculture providing services and products to a

global marketplace. (e-Bario)16

In Bangladesh, networks of telecentres provide Internet access, information support for

farmers, e-health services to communities without access to medical services, and training in

villages far removed from major population centres (e-Krishok).17

In India, Community Service Centres provide e-government services to millions of citizens

who otherwise would have had to make costly and time consuming journeys to fill out

government forms and make routine applications.18

In Brazil, community LANhouses (the equivalent to African telecentres) provide places where

youth can explore their musical and artistic creativity in a networked environment and has

acted significantly in diverting young people from crime and drugs into productive activities.19

13 M. Gurstein, "Introduction", Community Informatics: Enabling Communities With Information And Communications

Technologies, Idea Group 2000. 14 http://siyafundactc.org.za/ 15 http://Archive.Is/Pv4d 16 http://www.Unimas.My/Ebario/Main_Index.Htm 17 http://Ekrishok.Blogspot.Ca/ 18 http://www.Slideshare.Net/Gauravrawal/Community-Service-Center-Initiative-For-Rural-India 19 http://Globalvoicesonline.Org/2009/09/28/Brazil-Socio-Digital-Inclusion-Through-The-Lan-House-Revolution/


15

2. Stakeholder Participation in Policy Processes

Introduction

In the ICT area, there are a variety of actors involved as stakeholders in policy development.

at the national and regional levels. Each has their own role and responsibility and each must

be involved in some way in the development of ICT policy including policies that are cross-

cutting and multi-sectoral. One of the more significant issues identified in the course of this

study has been the absence of many of these stakeholders as participants in the relevant

policy processes in for example Agriculture as through the CAADP related activities. While

CAADP engages with actors in the agriculture sector at all levels there is no linking in

through this engagement of counterpart stakeholders in the ICT sector. Similarly it should

be noted that as ICT policy frameworks have been established at the national level in the

range of SSA countries there has been, in most instances, little or no engagement of the ICT

sector with other sectors, with the ICT sector being primarily concerned with infrastructure

development.

Table 1 below shows the traditional "stakeholders" in policy processes; however, for these

processes to truly reflect and engage the broad cross-section of those who will be impacted

by the policy and whose participation and cooperation is necessary for the policies to be

effective other groups have to be seen as necessary policy stakeholders.

TABLE 1 - POLICY STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder Role

REC Secretariat

Design and develop regional ICT framework/policy

Facilitate regional integration using ICT

National government Develop national policies

Parliament Pass law and approve budgets

Public administration and

Institutions Implementing arms of government policies

ICT suppliers Supply ICT related equipment

Big enterprises Big consumers of ICT services and products

SMEs Moderate consumers of ICT products and services

General public Consumers

Telecom operators Provision of ICT services

Regulators To ensure fair competitors, quality of services

Development partners Provide financial support in implementing ICT policy

at national level

Private entrepreneurs Extend service to end user/Consumer

Learning Institutions Supply human resources to ICT industry


16

This becomes more significant if one is concerned not simply with the stakeholders in one

policy area (as for example ICTs) but also the cross-over of ICTs into other sectors; one

needs to recognize that the categories of stakeholders is much larger and inclusive than is

normally identified. Thus stakeholders in policy processes would include such groups as

women, youth, the physically disabled, the diaspora and so on--all of whom have a "stake" in

the outcome of the policy process and thus should be included in the overall policy activity.

Diaspora

The Diaspora has played a very significant role in supporting the development and

particularly in ICT areas in South and East Asia. The circumstance of very considerable

numbers of South and East Asian migrants to developed countries for higher education and

then residency and citizenship in these countries was initially seen as representing a cost to

the home countries. But more recently with the availability of low cost air transport and the

telecommunications the role of the Diaspora as bridging between Developing and Developed

countries by providing skills, knowledge, innovation, and capital has become an increasingly

significant one.

Although there have been remarkably similar patterns of migration for education and then

employment from Africa to the Developed Countries, the African Diaspora is only just now

beginning to have a role in overall development processes and including with ICTs. Recent

developments in Nigeria and Ghana in organizing Diaspora organizations are leading the

way in this and one area of particular note is the role that the Diaspora is playing in

promoting and developing educational opportunities in ICTs in those countries and

elsewhere in Africa.

The first Global African Diaspora Summit was held on Africa Day at the Sandton Convention

Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. The summit, which was attended by 64 heads of

state, was hosted by the African Union (AU) in partnership with the South African

Government and takes place under the theme “Towards the Realisation of a United and

Integrated Africa and its Diaspora”.

The AU has defined the African Diaspora as "consisting of people of African origin living

outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to

contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union".

Historians estimate that between the years 1500 and 1900, approximately four million

enslaved Africans were transported to island plantations in the Indian Ocean, about eight

million were shipped to Mediterranean-area countries, and about 11 million survived the

Middle Passage to the New World.

In 2003, the first AU Extra-Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of States decided to

integrate the African Diaspora into the policy framework of the AU. This was done by

amending the Constitutive Act, to provide a new article that invites and provides full

participation of the African Diaspora as an important part of the continent.20

The Diaspora actively contributes towards the development of the continent through various

ways including remittance flows and technological transfers. Over 25 million African citizens

receive an estimated amount of 40 Billion USD annually in the form of remittances from their

20

http://www.info.gov.za/events/2012/african_diaspora.html

http://www.saconvention.co.za/

http://www.saconvention.co.za/

http://www.au.int/

http://www.au.int/en/about/constitutive_act


17

relatives abroad. If channelled into the proper sectors in terms of investments, these flows

will be of great benefit to Africa’s sustainable development.

Initiatives such as African Remittance Institute will enable recipients to use a banking system

that will not only channel the money as investments but will also reduce the cost of sending

the money. This in turn will effectively increase the efficiency and volume of flows coming

into the continent from the Diaspora around the world.21

Rural Poor and Rural Women22

Policy making processes and policy debates on the above issues rarely involve poor rural

people and their organisations, and are thus developed without their perspectives,

requirements and aspirations. At the same time, poor rural people and their organisations

and particularly the most vulnerable--women, youth, those with disabilities--often lack the

capabilities to engage with these processes. 23

Strengthening the organizations of poor rural people, to enable them to engage more

effectively in local and national policy and budgetary processes for agricultural and rural

development, and to hold government authorities accountable for their actions, is critical for

ensuring that policies and programmes respond to their interests and requirements. Opening

up fora, institutional space to promote dialogue between interests groups – including the

organisations of the rural poor – and public authorities must be supported. Thus there needs

to be the objective of ensuring at the national level, that poor rural men and women have

better and sustainable access to, and the skills and organization they require to take

advantage of local and national policy and programming processes.

These are not abstract concerns. In most African countries there are frameworks for poverty

reduction. The processes for their development, and those of their constituent sector policies

and strategies, typically offer space for civil society representation: the issue is to ensure that

the representatives of poor rural people are at the table. Equally, many developing countries

are engaging in decentralization processes. Yet the evidence suggests that there is nothing

about decentralization that is automatically pro-poor; indeed the contrary may be true, as

local elites take the centre stage. Their power must be balanced to the extent possible by

helping the rural poor to have a louder voice in local policy and budgetary processes and to

hold local governments accountable for their actions.

Women are especially disadvantaged. In Kenya for example, women are a

majority constituting 52% of the population, the power of their majority is

however lacking in the policy processes on ARD, with disempowerment of women at

the household, community as well as national affairs. In the rural

areas, women are especially vulnerable because they do not have equal access

to social and economic assets. Subsistence farming is the primary – and often the

only – source of livelihood for about 70 % of these women. Kenya’s long-term

planning blueprint Vision 2030, proposes policy measures to correct gender gaps in

21 http://www.ifad.org/operations/projects/regions/pf/factsheets/kenya.pdf

http://summits.au.int/en/sites/default/files/Article%20for%20publication%20on%20Global%20Diaspora%20Summit%2017

%2005%2012.pdf 22 The African Union's Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa http://www.achpr.org/instruments/declaration-on-gender-

equality-in-africa/ and parallel declarations from the Regional Economic Commissions should be noted as background to this

section and overall to the role of women as stakeholders in the various policy processes being discussed here. 23 Adapted From http://Planipolis.Iiep.Unesco.Org/Upload/Youth/South%20Africa/South_Africa_Youthpolicy.Pdf


18

access and control of resources, economic opportunities and in power and political

voice.24

As an example, there are promising cases where the organisations of poor rural women and

men are becoming stakeholders exerting influence on policy processes. At the national level,

thus the formulation of National Agriculture Laws (Loi d’Orientation Agricole) in Senegal

and Mali were deeply influenced by consultations with, and inputs from, national Farmer

apex organisations including women's organizations. At the regional level, processes of

dialogue on family agriculture between governments and organisations of poor rural people

are occurring.

Enabling women to achieve their productive potential requires many of the same reforms

that are necessary to address constraints facing small-scale farmers and rural people in

general, but additional care must be taken to ensure that women’s voices are heard in the

design and implementation of policies and interventions. Efforts are required to ensure that

women and men are equally served by rural institutions such as producers’ organizations,

labour unions, trade groups, and other membership-based organizations. Other public and

private service providers that operate in rural areas, such as extension services, animal

health services and microfinance organizations, should consider the specific needs of men

and women to ensure that their activities are gender-aware. Women’s groups have an

important role to play, but other rural institutions must also be accessible to women and

responsive to their needs.25

With lower literacy among women at 59% against men at 64% in Kenya for example, in turn

there is higher poverty levels among women at 46% against 30% for men in urban

areas which can affect the capacity to pay for ICT services to access information.

Women grow 80-90% of the food in Sub-Saharan Africa; they do most of the work on

smallholder farms, as well as managing domestic responsibilities. If women had

equal access to land, improved seeds and fertilizer, research shows that agricultural

productivity in SSA could rise by 20%; they are more likely to spend most of their

income on food, school costs and their children's needs. If women have control of the

household budget, ac child's chance of survival rises by 20%--- Farm Africa Annual

Review - citing World Food Summit, Food For All, Rome 13-17 Nov 96, FAO ,

Women in Agriculture , Closing the gender gap for development 201-11 , Bridging the

Gap FAO 2009. 26

General education and the ongoing transfer of information and practical skills will broaden

the range of choices women can make and give them more influence within their households

and communities. Building women’s human capital makes them better farmers, more

productive workers, better mothers and stronger citizens. Virtually any agricultural policy

related to natural resources, technology, infrastructure or markets will affect men and women

differently because they play different roles and experience different constraints and

opportunities in the sector. Good agricultural policy requires an understanding of the gender

dimensions at stake. Because some agricultural and gender issues are location-specific,

these may best be addressed through location-specific assessments and tailored policies

24

25

Adapted From http://www.Fao.Org/Docrep/013/I2050e/I2050e06.Pdf

26 Mureithi, M. op.cit


19

and programmes. Making women’s voices heard at all levels in decision-making is crucial in

this regard.27

Policy environments enable rural women's empowerment when they address the gender

disparities and discrimination that exists across different sectors, including agriculture, rural

development, forestry, fisheries, trade, finance, education, health and environment. As such,

policies that are complementary and coherent are essential to rural women fully enjoying

their rights, and participating and leading in economic, social and political matters.

Specifically we found a clear under-representation of women at all levels in the policy

processes examined at the national and regional levels. Women were very limited in their

presence in the regional level farmer representative organizations and women's

organizations had only limited participation in policy processes directly. The situation was

similar at the national level in those countries reviewed. The result was that concerns of

specific interest to women were given less direct emphasis and overall there was less

priority given to ensuring a women's voice in the development of plans and outcomes.

An interview with the Tanzania Council for Social Development - TACOSODE an

umbrella support for grassroots NGO points out some areas of intervention to

empower women. The traditions and customs are still very prevalent in the rural

areas and shackle women from freely expressing themselves. Any effort to engage

women at the grassroots will require creation of a comfort space to give women

confidence to reach out. Once this confidence is attained and rapport is built then it is

becomes easy to engage women. Thus, it is critical that for any sustainable

engagement there is need to provide information offering various alternatives for her

to contribute meaningfully. An effective way out is to engage the rural woman through

the grassroots organisation which most of the rural women are members. These

grassroots organisations are the intermediaries to apex organisations that engage in

national policy process.28

Cellular coverage is extensive in the countryside and provides a good platform to reach out

to the rural woman. Thus, use of cellular for both voice and sms is feasible while email and

the web are useful to engage the grassroots organisations, which acts as an intermediary.

Radio and to some extent Television are prevalent and are useful tools to impact and

engage the rural women.

Finally, where telecentres or community information centres are available, they are found

to be useful to enhance information access to women. The question is often asked whether

women and the rural poor can pay for the use of telecentres and thus sustain their

operation. The evidence shows that women pay for water in the rural areas and can pay for

information services if they can derive value to provide opportunity.

Youth 29

30

27

http://www.Un.Org/Womenwatch/Feature/Ruralwomen/Overview-Policy-Environments.Html

28 Mureithi op.cit. 29 The African Union's "Addis Ababa Declaration Of Youth" should be seen as background to the following section

discussing youth as a stakeholder in policy processes. http://www.africa-

union.org/root/ua/Conferences/Mai/hrst/Draft%20Declaration%20of%20Pan%20African%20Youth.pdf 30 Adapted from http://www.Dfid.Gov.Uk/R4d/Output/188056/Default.Aspx


20

The rapid and sustained increase in the number of young people in the global south is one

of today’s most significant demographic trends. Around 90 percent of young people reside in

developing countries. By 2030 Africa is projected to have as many youth as East Asia and

by 2050 could also exceed the youth population in South Asia. Growing numbers of young

people entail a process of demographic change within societies; ‘rejuvenation’ in a literal

sense. Whereas some expert commentators are pessimistic about the prospects for

economic growth and poverty reduction in Africa, youth bulges are recognised by many as a

window of opportunity. They are seen to potentially offer a demographic dividend: where a

larger workforce with fewer dependents could generate strong economic growth. Youth

bulges are however also associated with severe levels of unemployment and youth are seen

as amongst the most vulnerable and most powerless.

The recent global economic crisis has hit youth hardest. Young people experience

disproportionately high levels of unemployment, and often experience age-based

discrimination in labour markets. In Africa ‘young people have much higher unemployment

rates, operate more in the informal economy, have lower wages, and have more precarious

jobs than adults’. Thus, a UN Security Council mission to West Africa reported in 2003 that

‘In every county visited, the mission heard about the problem of unemployment, particularly

among young people, and how this was a perennial source of instability in West Africa’.31

Consequently, there is growing recognition that developmental policies must, at a minimum,

cater to the needs and aspirations of youth. Moreover, young people’s effective engagement

in policy processes is seen as a means to channel their energy, passions and frustrations in

a beneficial manner.

In the last decade and a half, many governments in sub-Saharan Africa (and elsewhere in

the developing and developed world) have promulgated national youth policies, set out

national action plans for youth, and set up new institutions to work on ‘youth issues’. For

instance, the governments of Kenya, The Gambia, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa,

Tanzania and Zambia have initiated national youth policies and action plans, while the

governments of e.g. Lesotho, The Gambia, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia

have established national youth councils.

Internationally, there is growing recognition of the importance of youth participation in

decision-making, for both practical reasons and as a political right. For instance, the

International Labour Organisation of the UN considers that ‘Youth participation must lie at

the centre of the creation of policies for youth’ and the Commonwealth Secretariat considers

youth participation as ‘cardinal to development programming’.32

It is argued that consulting young people and drawing on their perceptions, knowledge and

ideas are essential to both the development of effective public policy and the achievement of

positive outcomes. Thus, in the case of information provision, young people may be better

able to identify appropriate communication formats and channels.33

Finally, the argument is advanced that a failure to enhance youth participation in policy

processes risks policy failure, crime, violence and intergenerational discord. Successful

youth policy is posited to depend on effective representation. If ‘young people’s voices are

not heard and the impact of public policy on their lives is not discussed in decision-making

31 http://www.unric.org/en/youth-unemployment/27414-youth-the-hardest-hit-by-the-global-financial-crisis 32 http://dialogue2012.fanrpan.org/sites/default/files/publications/te_Lintelo_Unspoken_assumptions_revised.pdf 33 http://www.ioe.ac.uk/EngagementAndLearning.pdf


21

forums, their concerns [will] never reach the top of political agendas’. Moreover, ‘if young

people are not involved in the development of the laws, policies and programmes that affect

them, even well-intentioned actions on the part of adults will often fail to protect their best

interests’. 34

Resource constraints and logistical considerations often mean youth consultations have a

strong urban bias, while proceedings may only be conducted in the official administrative

languages of the country, for example English rather than Swahili in East Africa.

Consequently, the views of rural and uneducated and poor youth (and other subgroups) may

not be heard.

Efforts to engage young people should take into consideration emerging structural forms

based on networks of collaboration and common interests. One example that seems to

reverse the decline in traditional participation and civic engagement by youth is internet-

based activities. Such new modes of participation may provide novel and additional

opportunities for more young people to become active in decision-making and in shaping

their societies.35

Village Level Participation

Villagers are not well represented in policy processes. The urban is more represented than

the rural populace. From the policy makers’ view, targeting key stakeholders from all

corners of the country is essential, but not necessarily easy to achieve. Participation has

associated costs such as transport. In some cases, a culture has developed where when

stakeholders are invited to participate in workshop they expect payment. When such

payment is not done, it becomes difficult for the next event to mobilize stakeholders from

rural areas and bring them on board. Additionally, there is a challenge related to the

facilitation, collection and documentation of inputs from stakeholders. Discussions with

stakeholders in Burundi have proven that sometimes villagers are involved in policy

processes but the challenge is to document and present these inputs with clarity.

Generally speaking there is lack of policy ownership by the community. Once the

policy is developed, the community ‘understanding is that the implementation and

follow up is the responsibility of the policy makers and the community role in the

whole process is just limited to consultation during development process. At least

policy makers in Burundi understand that creating ownership of the policy process

and its results is critically important and requires a well designed process. According

to policy makers, this may be the best way to ensure an adequate degree of

commitment, accountability and smooth policy implementation. If such ownership

does not exist, most believe that the whole process may end in failure.36

Therefore, limited and poor participation in policy processes result in a lack of ownership in

the policy process. Participation is central for building ownership because it allows individual

stakeholders, or coalitions formed during the process, to voice their views and interests.

Specific communities and specialized ICTs associations must also be considered in the rural

and Agriculture policy-making process. Unfortunately, these are not well represented in

policy forums. The use of ICTs is not yet considered a cross cutting issue in all thematic

34 http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/pdf/call_action.pdf 35

APRM Policy Processes. Bonn, German Development Institute: 220.

36 Barera, P. op.cit.


22

areas. Hence there is a tendency to consider the use of ICTs as a standalone issue which

has no relationship with other sectors of the economy, The results, are that during policy

processes, ICT associations are not involved at all.

As well, public consultation processes do not allow community-based organizations the time

to research and properly prepare to effectively participate. In most cases communication

related to stakeholders is traditional, in other words, the use of ICT tools such emails, short

message services is not commonly used and hence preference is given to traditional

communication.37

Conclusion

It is noted that stakeholder participation in policy processes is not only about the best

technical/scientific response to an issue; it is primarily about the best technical solution

acceptable to all (or a majority of) stakeholders. Therefore, stakeholder’s participation in

Agriculture and rural development policy processes becomes critical to ensure that there is

inclusiveness and equity in policy processes; that the analytical capability to address ARD

policy issues is available; and that grass-roots mobilization and participation is ensured; and

finally that a focused and holistic action plan is developed.

This contextual framework draws attention to the participation of grassroots participation in

policy processes especially by youth, women and rural citizens. The actual scenario is that

youth participation in the policy process remains very limited. In practice, participation in

policy formulation is more symbolic than what we can call active participation. In other words

this participation is limited to a narrow scope known as policy consultation. In most cases

this type of consultation may take place simply for the purpose of fulfilling donor’s

requirements.

Looking at village level involvement in policy processes, study results show that villagers are

not well represented in ARD policies. According to the policy makers, targeting key

stakeholders from all corners of the country is essential, but not necessarily easy to achieve.

Participation in a policy development process has associated costs such as transport

accommodation and hence this limits villagers participation.

Further investigation revealed gaps in the use of ICT to enable grassroots participation in

policy processes. Gaps are related to issues of content, ICT awareness, infrastructure at

grassroots level and most importantly to capacity building of intermediary organization and

rural communities to use ICT. Despite government efforts in promoting ICT,

telecommunications infrastructure still remains very limited. Internet is available only in major

towns and semi-urban areas leaving remote villages unconnected to the World Wide Web.

With approximately 80% of the population living in rural areas in many SSA countries, the

tele-density remains very low. Additionally, community telecentres which are considered to

be a strategic option to bridge the digital divide are poorly distributed with a large number in

cities and much smaller number in rural areas.

37 Barera, P. op.cit.


23

3. ICTs in Agricultural and Rural Development Policy

Processes– Findings and Recommendations

Introduction

At the core of policy processes are high levels of information processing and of

communications both technologically mediated (in current environments) and face to face.

ICTs are making an increasingly significant contribution to the success of these processes

even without focussed attention or planning being specifically addressed to these matters.

However, in the absence of this attention or focussed planning, gaps arise, inefficiencies are

allowed to be maintained and effective implementations are not undertaken. Most

importantly the resources which ICTs represent are primarily of benefit to those already

privileged in their use through existing access to financial and technical means; higher levels

of technical and other literacies; and the advantages that come from residence in certain

locations and milieus.

Equally, many of those who are not currently benefiting from ICT resources are not

sufficiently familiar with the opportunities that they present to make the necessary efforts or

interventions to help them overcome these "divides". Thus in general more effort is

necessary to create awareness of the contribution of ICTs as a tool and a platform to support

all aspects of the policy process - from identification and definition of issues; to data

collection, processing and storage; to information sharing and management; to providing

support to consultation and decision making; to capturing knowledge and lessons learned.

It is widely understood (though perhaps more in the prospect than in current African reality)

how ICTs can be transformative to agricultural production and distribution processes. It is

perhaps less widely recognized how ICTs can contribute to the development of the policy

processes that frame and underlie development throughout the entire ecology of small scale

and larger agriculture production and rural development. Thus the importance and

contribution of ICTs should be mainstreamed in strategy processes. As well, more effort

should be assigned to creating awareness among the policy leadership as to these

circumstances. It is particularly important to create awareness among the grassroots

concerning how the use of ICTs can enhance and empower their contribution and

participation in the range of on-going sectorial and cross-sectorial policy processes

throughout Africa.

In the sections that follow, significant findings and their implications are presented, followed

by some recommendations.

Findings

(Non-ICT related and specifically the CAADP) Policy processes

lack visibility in the ICT community

CAADP appears to be working effectively and is highly regarded everywhere but not known

much outside of the ARD community.


24

CAADP as a multi-stakeholder process for agricultural planning is, based on discussions in

several countries, highly effective. It acts so as to be inclusive of the range of interests

involved in agriculture at the national level including with governments, the private sector,

civil society (representing small holders and other grassroots interests) and development

partners (donors) along with some, but still limited, involvement from researchers.

While the CAADP process was highly regarded and very visible in circles directly associated

with agriculture and rural development, it was notable that there was little to no knowledge or

awareness of CAADP outside of those circles and specifically among those involved with or

responsible for ICT development at the national, REC or continental levels. In meetings in

country after country ICT officials would indicate no knowledge of CAADP or the local

counterpart but would indicate significant interest once the process and activity was

explained. In several instances, the ICT officials quite spontaneously indicated an interest in

being linked to these processes, seeing an immediate connection between their own work in

developing ICT infrastructure in support of development in rural areas and these broader

planning initiatives. Not incidentally, a wider base of support for ICT infrastructure

development budgets was seen as a possibility if such a linkage were to be made i.e.

connecting ICT development more directly to ARD activities.

There is thus a need to bring some convergence or at least linkages between processes

such as CAADP and ICT policy formulation so that there is an alignment in areas of such

widespread impact as rural employment, agriculture and rural research, market access, and

climate change. As well of course, the ARD space provides huge opportunities for the ICT

innovation sector to provide applications that are of value. Most specifically, ICT should be

considered and clearly understood as cross cutting and impacting all sectors.

While there was a general understanding of the value and potential use of ICTs, and an

almost universal use of laptops and the Internet by those actually involved in policy

processes there was little actual use of ICTs in more sophisticated ways for information

management, for training, for engagement with the grassroots and so on. As well there were

no resources specifically designed to support the use of ICTs in the policy processes.

While the African Union is the ultimate host for the CAADP and other continent based policy

processes there is currently little awareness of or involvement with these processes by AU

based ICT officials or programmes. Rather, the AU ICT programme is for the most part

concerned with managing the completion of several activities/programmes having to do with

national and continent wide ICT policy and regulatory matters. In discussion it was indicated

that while there was an interest in possible involvement with CAADP processes at some time

in the future, the ICT programme at the AU currently has no activities directed towards the

grassroots.

ECOWAS' ICT agency as an example, is not currently involved with or even familiar with the

CAADP processes. ECOWAS does however, have activities directed towards the

grassroots use of ICTs and is looking to develop more and is thus quite interested in

developing a relationship with CAADP and identifying possible joint activities perhaps

focussing on intermediary organizations representing the grassroots but in fact working at

the regional (REC) level.

In reviewing the operations of the CAADP processes in several countries it became quickly

evident that ICTs were not a constituent component of those processes. While all (or

effectively all) of the participants in the processes themselves had mobiles, laptops and were


25

able to access and use the Internet and various office support software there did not appear

to be any broader use of ICTs or mobiles for information management, for consultation

(beyond email or voice communications) or as a means for inclusion of, or communications

with, the grassroots. While those involved with CAADP expressed an interest in the use of

ICTs, their notions of how or where to do so were rather vague. However, among the

suggestions were:

to use ICTs to provide a means of inclusion for young people

to provide access to ICTs (the Internet) and make these more broadly available in

rural areas as a way of making the rural lifestyle more attractive to young people.

using laptops (or IPads) for training at the grassroots

using mobiles for soliciting (and managing) feedback from the grassroots on issues

of interest in the CAADP and related policy processes.

Grassroots participation requires facilitation

While grassroots participation is identified as a necessary component of the various policy

processes it is notable that grassroots participation is facilitated primarily by means of

intermediary organizations--farmer's unions, cooperative associations, women's NGO's and

so on rather than through direct grassroots representation. The explanation for this is that

given transport and communications limitations in rural areas and other problems concerning

literacy, current levels of education and the use of European rather than local languages; it is

presented as more appropriate to have grassroots participation undertaken through

representative intermediary organizations which in turn, are structured so as to be based on

a network of local grassroots organizations.

It is further notable that in several of the countries visited it was estimated that less than 30%

of the rural areas had access to mobile communications and that less than 2% had access

to the Internet. These circumstances meant that for all practical purposes participation in

policy processes could only be conducted through face to face consultation as for example,

through public meetings or community fora. This places severe restrictions on the degree of

participation which would be possible and on the speed with which consultation could

normally occur if there was to be direct grassroots participation.

Of course, the rapid increase in access of mobiles is to some degree changing the

environment concerning grassroots participation amongst other areas. As already noted, to

some degree this 'revolution' is having its greatest impact in urban areas with the lack of

supportive infrastructure including regular electricity supply (restricting the degree to which

rural dwellers may achieve involvement in policy processes as among other areas).

However, the situation is changing quickly in many locales and initiatives are being

discussed and can be further identified for utilizing mobiles for participatory input although

some considerable amount of planning and service design will be necessary.

Given the significance of the CAADP and similar processes as central to national

development planning and execution, the need to both ensure efficiency of operations and

the widest possible scope of participation meant that there was a great emphasis on the role

of the "intermediary organizations" as the means for communications both to and from the

grassroots.

Reports on the satisfaction of the grassroots (in most instances in fact, intermediary

organizations) with the policy processes were mixed. In some instances those interviewed


26

were very satisfied with their role and contribution to the policy processes and felt

empowered in their degree of influencing of the outcomes. In other instances, dissatisfaction

was expressed in part, as a response to inequities in access to the resources (such as

information) required for such participation.

This condition of experienced "information asymmetry" as between grassroots organizations

and others (notably government) involved in the policy processes was an underlying theme

of certain of those dissatisfied with their degree of influence. This of course, is exacerbated

by high illiteracy levels among the grassroots in ARD.

Presently, ICT applications at the grassroots are being used for operational information only

and are very fragmented. It is necessary to create awareness both at the grassroots and

among other stakeholders of the value that can be built through more focussed attention on

the broader role that ICTs and information access can play including through enhancing

involvement of the grassroots in policy processes. Higher levels of engagement will also

ensure additional buy-in to policy outcomes and any consequential programmatic actions.

Stakeholder groupings are not homogenous

Even after identifying the stakeholders to a policy process, it is noteworthy that the

stakeholders are not homogeneous. There are unique classes of stakeholders with special

needs that need to be identified and given special attention. Such unique stakeholders

include women, youth and vulnerable groups.

Community-oriented ICT initiatives for example, need to be "gendered" given the different

roles, circumstances, and resources that women and men bring to a policy process. Lack of

gendered ICTs can influence access to information due to traditional lifestyles at the local

level. Lower literacy among women (at 59% against men at 64%in Kenya for example) has

to be taken into account in designing community-oriented ICT initiatives to ensure that

information is specially designed and packaged to cater for the higher illiteracy among

women. Higher poverty levels among women at 46% against 30% for men (again in Kenya)

in urban areas (there is likely to be an even greater disparity in rural areas) can affect the

capacity to pay for information, communications and related services.

Any effort to engage women at the grassroots will require creation of a comfortable space to

give women confidence to reach out. Once this confidence is attained and rapport is built

then it becomes relatively easy to engage women. Access to information is a problem for the

rural women if it is not packaged in an understandable way. An effective way to engage rural

women is through grassroots organisations of which most members are women. These

grassroots organisations are the intermediaries to apex organisations that engage in national

policy processes. Radio, and to some extent television, are widely available and are useful

tools to impact and engage rural women. Finally, where telecentres or community

information centres are available, they have been found to be useful to enhance information

access for women. Women pay for water services in rural areas and potentially could pay for

information services if they can derive sufficient value from this opportunity.

Youth as well, have specific requirements and there is a need to pay particular attention to

their inclusion as a way of ensuring their longer term involvement with and commitment to

the outcome of these processes. Particularly vulnerable groups such as the aged and those

with disabilities may find that their concerns are more or less completely overlooked in these


27

processes as no representation has been identified or empowered to give them a "voice" in

these fora.

Limited Internet access in rural areas impacts on participation

Several major problems restrict Internet access and use in rural areas in the region:

lack of basic communications infrastructure--in many cases no communications

infrastructure (apart from very costly satellite) is available in significant components

of the rural areas in highly agriculture dependent countries

the cost of access even where terrestrial access is available is often out of reach of

rural dwellers and communities

in many rural areas, there is no regular access to electricity apart from expensive

generators or batteries (although the increasing efficiency of solar panels may

eventually provide a low cost alternative). This severely restricts the use of electricity

dependent ICTs such as mobiles.

lack of local maintenance and technical support

lack of useful information in local languages

lack of literacy on the part of the local population

In response to the absence of Internet access (or resources to ensure opportunities for

"effective ICT use" 38 ) in rural areas, several countries through their ICT Directorates

indicated that they currently had experience with telecentres as the means for providing

grassroots access to the Internet. In Malawi these seemed to be active and to a degree

integrated into local service delivery. In Ethiopia the government is involved in an on-going

major program of telecentre development initially to create a network of telecentres at the

District (Woreda) level--approximately 550, and ultimately at the municipal level--

approximately 10,000. These centres are meant to support local administration and

ultimately e-Government applications and are part of national ICT plans. In Burkina Faso,

the telecentre networks were reported to be largely defunct having failed as a means for

providing local Internet access and replaced in many instances by commercial ICT centres

(cybercafes). Nigeria indicated that they had no history of telecentres but rather Internet

access was very widely available throughout the country by means of commercial

cybercafes.

Rural ICT networks have been playing a critical role not only in providing affordable

access to ICT for disadvantaged communities but also in raising awareness about

the benefits of using ICT tools in various domain. More importantly, it would be quite

impossible for a country like Burundi to provide access to ICT for each and every

household. However the Telecentre Network can play a leading role in accessing all

corners of the country. Policy makers need to recognize the role that rural

Telecentres and their supporting Telecentre Networks can play in facilitating

grassroots participation in policy process.39

Community-based Internet access centres are declining in importance as long as their focus

is solely on providing Internet connectivity. The value of the community access is enhanced

only through the provision of value adding services such as training services, information

gathering, focused support to ARD (including ARD policy processes) and so on. It is 38 cf. Gurstein, M. “Effective Use: A Community Informatics Strategy Beyond the Digital Divide”, First Monday, December

2003. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_12/gurstein/index.html 39 Barera, op.cit.

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_12/gurstein/index.html


28

imperative to develop a business case around information packaging and value addition

through information services as a supplement to the simple provision of access (which is

evidently not sustainable) as the primary focus for community Internet facilities. In this way,

they would provide a local service as a repository of local information including from the

various components of the ARD policy processes, for local sharing and at the same time be

able to provide the means to search and package information of ARD interest to the local

community.

Improvement in ICT literacy is necessary due to the fact that the majority of rural people are

computer illiterate. This would increase confidence in the use of computers and thus

potentially enable many citizens to participate in policy processes though the use of ICTs as

well as other applications.

The future of communications in the region is seen as being closely linked to widening

access to mobile networks. Currently mobiles have a limited footprint in rural areas in most

African countries although they have made huge inroads in urban areas. Certain mobile

applications are available in some countries for rural populations and specifically market

information being provided via mobiles in Burkina and Malawi and very extensively in

Nigeria. As well, there is the provision of weather information via low cost SMS on mobiles

for fishermen on Lake Victoria in Uganda40 but not as yet on Lake Malawi or elsewhere in

the region.41

There is a noticeable lack of awareness at the grassroots of the possible role of ICTs. Partly

this is due to a lack of experience and limited education (and literacy) and partly this is due

to a failure on the part of ARD stakeholders involved with the grassroots to themselves

effectively employ ICTs and to transmit to the grassroots their knowledge (even if partial) on

the value that ICTs can play. There is thus a need for a systematic approach to promoting

ICT awareness and its relevance. This will undoubtedly increase utilization, adoption, and

ownership of deployed ICTs.

Training in the value and use of ICTs is critical in the various tiers of the policy processes

namely:

at the policy leadership level training is to help the leadership see the strategic role of

ICTs as an information tool and platform

at the intermediary level and particularly for entrepreneurs and managers

implementing community-oriented ICT initiatives , training should target

information search and packaging for actors with low literacy levels as well as

processes to engage local producers of information

at the grassroots level, the training needs to target basic use of ICTs and the

opportunities provided by ICTs.

Mobile technologies have gained widespread distribution among most segments of the

population. Policy makers should leverage and use these tools to maximize public

participation in policy development processes especially among youth. For example use of

short message services could be useful in collecting feedback from the public.

An issue which seems to arise with many mobile ARD applications is their longer term

financial sustainability since there is the need for an intermediary or service organization to

40http://www.Ericsson.Com/News/120510_Mobile_Weather_Service_Improves_Safety_Of_Fishermen_In_Uganda_244159

019_C 41 http://www.Jhr.Ca/Blog/2012/03/Linking-Farmers-To-Markets-One-Sms-At-A-Time/


29

act as information provider on a regular basis and there is the need for funding for

supporting this organization/service as the business model for supporting these services has

not as yet been proven.

Climate change policy processes

Issues (and policies) concerning climate change are developing rapidly and moving

inexorably to the centre of various national policy agendas. Evidence shows that the impact

of climate change is becoming a destabilizing factor, as country after country has to respond

to unseasonable and excessive rainfall (and flooding) or, the lack of rainfall and the

attendant conditions of drought and desertification. The resulting crises in food supply and

climate induced migrations is very much in evidence in many countries.

Policy responses are various, including through extending the CAADP multi-stakeholder

policy development process at the regional and national levels. In some instances, the policy

process has been directly linked to the CAADP process (Burkina) or to the development of

parallel governmental structures as in Malawi's Ministry for Environment and Climate

Change. In either instance significant effort is beginning to be put into the twin approaches to

climate change--"mitigation" and "adaptation".

As well and whatever the institutional form, there is an absolute requirement for inclusion of

grassroots "voices" at all stages of the policy process. From the initial problem definition

where experience on the ground will be of great value in defining the nature of the specific

developments in particular locales; to identifying possible approaches to adaptation at the

local level (new crops, new cropping patterns, new agriculture methods and so on); through

to assisting in the implementation and the resulting necessity for cultural and behavioural

change and adaptation.

The speed, breadth and scope of the required mitigation and adaptation processes is such

that whatever tools that are available to assist all of the various stakeholders will need to be

put into play and particularly those that support information gathering and research; data,

information and knowledge management, processing, storage and retrieval;

communications; information sharing; and open data and information access; among others.

All of this strongly points to the need for an active process of inclusion of ICTs as a

necessary element in the policy development process including effective use by all

stakeholders as for example, is illustrated in the figure below.

Rural employment policy processes

Rural employment is seen as an issue to be addressed but the specifics of addressing it are

somewhat confused as responsibilities in the area appear to be scattered over a number of

ministries and agencies. Thus for example, in some countries the responsibility is assigned

to Ministries of Employment or Human Resources while in others it is a program within

Ministries of Rural Development while in still others the responsibilities lie with Ministries of

Small Business Development.

This somewhat confused pattern suggests one of the difficulties in addressing issues of rural

employment/unemployment. Thus, how is one to differentiate rural employment as a policy

issue from overall rural development (and particularly agricultural development) activity. In

fact, rural employment can be seen as a secondary development of using agricultural


30

outputs as a resource for possible processing and value added. Similarly agricultural inputs

can be seen as a potential market for local product (and service) development and import

substitution for example. All of this implies a rather more sophisticated and knowledge

intensive approach to the issue than might be necessary for example, in responding to the

needs of largely subsistence oriented farm families.

This more information and knowledge intensive area of activity would benefit significantly

from additional access to ICT resources including for planning, resourcing, marketing, and

financial management and the policy planning for this will equally benefit from a wide range

of information sources, effective knowledge management processes and widespread access

to communications and knowledge distribution as illustrated in the figure below.

Agricultural research policy processes

The development and use of a knowledge base for Agriculture and Rural Development is

one of the pillars of the CAADP process. FARA’s42 strategic framework for CAADP Pillar IV

is built around five networking support functions (NSFs). Collectively, these NSFs play an

advocacy role in maintaining agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption

as a high priority in the political agendas at continental, sub-regional and national levels.

They also advocate for productivity-enhancing approaches to agricultural development using

the FAAP.

NSFs facilitate the integration of activities that promote access to knowledge and

technologies for innovation. This entails supporting CAADP country and regional processes

that lead to knowledge management and sharing for extension and advisory services;

promoting the dissemination of new agricultural technologies through ICT and e-learning

platforms; and promoting networking and sharing of materials, information, knowledge and

skills concerned with agricultural advisory service delivery in support of CAADP and FAAP.

Farmer empowerment will play a key role in improving agricultural productivity and efforts to

develop systems that foster greater farmer knowledge, control of funds, organizational power

and institutional participation; and allowing producers to become more active partners in

agricultural productivity initiatives. This will require, among other things, research on the ICT

and distance learning techniques that will put the farmers in the driver's seat by empowering

them to access the information they need when they need it.

Farmers and pastoralists need the support of enabling extension and advisory services that

take advantage of the most appropriate approaches, such as field days and Farmer Field

Schools, community radio and village telecentres. In view of the distances and poor

infrastructures, agricultural actors must also take advantage of modern information and

communications technologies (ICTs) and distance learning methodologies, which empower

farmers and allow them to demand for and access suitable knowledge. The quality of tertiary

agricultural education is critical.43

There appears to have been only limited involvement of grassroots actors in Agricultural

Research areas. This is perhaps not surprising given the history of research in the region

which has tended to be somewhat detached from practical concerns. As well, the

development of mechanisms to support and enable grassroots or even intermediate

42 Adapted From http://www.FARA-Africa.Org/Media/Uploads/File/FARA%20publications/Faap_English.Pdf 43 Ibid.


31

organization involvement in research planning or design requires a considerable amount of

resources and commitment which may interfere with other more immediate priority areas

and activities.

Market Access policy processes

Constraints related to technology, market logistics, and access to services can be overcome

to a large extent through innovative use of modern technologies, in particular ICTs and

biotechnology. ICTs are already being used to solve market information and intermediation

constraints. It can also be used more aggressively to revolutionize extension services and

overcome physical and human capital constraints to disseminating and accessing better

technologies and improved cropping practices. Technologies are also being piloted in the

area of financial intermediation.44

Infrastructure for ICTs in particular, offers an opportunity to reduce asymmetries of

information and to open new local, regional, and international markets, particularly for high-

value products for which transaction costs are significant. Finally, a regional approach to

infrastructure development can provide an opportunity to create the economies of scale

necessary to lower the cost of meeting rapidly expanding infrastructure demand. 45

Innovative use of telephones and access to the Internet could play a crucial role in reducing

the asymmetries of information and transaction costs and thereby increasing the integration

of farmers into regional, national, and international trade networks. By opening trading

opportunities and supporting the functioning of markets, improved ICTs can increase the

availability of food as well as monetary income. Under the CAADP Pillar II agenda, ICTs can

be harnessed to improve, for example, the negotiating capacity of farmers; information on

market standards and requirements, including sanitary and phytosanitary requirements; and

diffusion of new production technologies.

Infrastructure investments in ICTs can boost capacity to deal with systemic climate, health,

and other risks affecting their agricultural production supply. They do so by helping to

improve (1) the quality of public goods provision, such as health services; (2) the quality of

human resources, primarily through better access to education; (3) the use or extension of

existing social networks; and (4) the operation of existing or new institutional arrangements

to empower poor people and communities.46

The Important Role of Intermediary organizations

Intermediary organizations are increasingly recognized as an important force in

development. Generally speaking, the particular strengths of Intermediary organizations in

development include: 1) serving as bridges to affected communities; 2) ensuring projects are

implemented as envisaged; 3) nurturing continuity in project work; 4) advocating for

increased transparency and good governance; and 5) giving voice to vulnerable and/or

marginalized group.

In the context of ARD, intermediary organizations act as local or regional organizations

which link grassroots communities with policy makers, research institutions, and

44 http://www.NEPAD-CAADP.Net/Pdf/%28final%29_CAADP_Brochure-Area_D_%281-21-09%29.Pdf 45 http://www.NEPAD-CAADP.Net/Pdf/CAADP%20pillar%20ii%20fima%20full%20document.Pdf (P.36) 46 http://www.NEPAD-CAADP.Net/Pdf/%28final%29_CAADP_Brochure-Area_B_%281-21-09%29.Pdf


32

development partners among others. Examples of these organizations are Farmers Unions,

Telecentre Networks, youth or women associations and other Non-governmental

organizations and specialized Networks. They play critical roles in such areas as capacity

building, advocacy, and technology transfer. Below is a list of activities that intermediary

organizations could play in the context of implementing a community-oriented ICT4ARD.

Role47 Description

Capacity builder Intermediary organization would play a key

role in building the capacity of the grassroots in

the use of ICT and adoption of specialized

application for instance e-mitigation for climate

change

Information broker Facilitates the transfer of information in a

friendly manner between national and regional

Institutions. Creates direct links between

government, university and other research

institutions, maintaining short communication

channels and a limited number of links for

information access and management.

Resource mobilizer The sustainability of a CI framework will need

strong back up and support from the

grassroots. Intermediary organizations will play

a leading role in mobilizing resources at the

grassroots level.

Advocacy Intermediary organizations will play a role in

increasing the understanding of the concept of

community informatics within the community

and at policy level.

Policy influence Intermediary organization are well positioned

to influence policy by collecting inputs and

feedback from the grassroots and presenting

these in the context of national and regional

policy agendas.

Figure 9: Roles of Intermediary Organizations

Limited use of ICTs for citizen participation

During our interviews we realized that policy makers have not yet recognized the role ICTs

could play in enhancing participation in policy processes. Therefore raising awareness on

the importance of ICT in the policy development process becomes critical.

In addition, a systematic approach to promoting ICT awareness and its relevance in the

community is of paramount importance. This will undoubtedly increase utilization, adoption,

47 Bar


33

and ownership of deployed ICTs. Therefore, there must be increased ICT awareness

campaigns countrywide, such as National ICT week, newspaper articles, ICT

competitions/awards and media campaigns.

As acknowledged by all donors, good governance and the participation of citizens in the

policy process is key to development. Agriculture, and more broadly rural development, is no

exception to this. For good governance to be a reality in rural areas, the voice of the landless

and small farmers who mostly rely on casual labour must be heard by policy makers. As

African countries are at an early stage of integrating ICT in the community, there is room to

use modern ICT facilities such as video conferencing to enable remote communities to

provide inputs into the policy process.

Citizen participation is at the core of economic development and good governance. ICTs can

greatly enhance extensive participation by providing affordable and efficient ways to extend

services and information to communities. This will also greatly improve local government

transparency and accountability.

Also, it is imperative that all government institutions establish appropriate and effective

communication mechanisms and an institutional framework that facilitates transition from

traditional systems to ICT enabled systems.

Policies should be owned by the community and understood by the general populace, for

example, a community of clusters or a focus area can be created during the policy

formulation process. These clusters could take ownership of ideas and inputs, as well as

monitor and support the policy implementation process within their area of interest. Sectoral

policies and strategies need to be well known by the stakeholders and general public to

ensure their successful implementation. This means that policy sensitization must be given

priority.

Also, policy makers should inform stakeholders and the general public on the upcoming

policy and available information well in advance. Since communities need to get updates on

overall policy implementation, there is a need to continuously update the public on the

progress of policy implementation. Using online tools and social media would facilitate this

process.

ICT policy formulation should be aligned with other policy areas such as rural employment,

agriculture and rural research, market access, and climate change in order to maximize

impact. More specifically, ICT should be considered and clearly understood as cross cutting

and impacting all sectors. Hence additional stakeholders operating in the ICT for

development sector should be involved in the policy development process.

There is a desire to learn about and access information about government programs and

services. New technologies offer opportunities for information sharing, public participation,

and collaboration. The government should harness these technologies to make more

information public in ways that enable people to understand what the governments is doing

and to influence decisions. The government should recognize that increasing access to

technology entails supporting the ability of governments and citizens in its use.

Rural agricultural communities across Africa share the following attributes and challenges:

the prevalence of poverty, remoteness and marginalization, low levels of education, low

productivity, a lack of relevant and appropriate information and knowledge-sharing

mechanisms, weak transportation and communications infrastructure. In this context,


34

building community-oriented networks could tie rural agricultural communities into

partnerships with other parties such as scientists and advocacy groups, thus making

improvements in their capacity to influence policy.

Recommendations

Use Universal Services Funds for Community-Oriented

Initiatives

While many countries have created Universal Services Funds as part of the process of

privatization of the PTT's and in many cases these funds have grown to be quite sizeable in

volume, for the most part they have not been used to support activities in the ARD sector.

Rather they have focused on narrower areas of infrastructure development. These funds

however, could provide a considerable financial base for the development of ICT supports

for grassroots and intermediate organization involvement in overall policy processes.

Governments should also be encouraged to design preferential tariffs to ease access to

ICTs (connectivity, tools) for rural communities, farmer groups and agricultural institutions,

including extension institutions, tapping on the resources available in Universal Service and

Access Funds.

Promote Open Access-Open Government Data

While Open Access (to research) and Open Government Data is moving to centrality in

research and government reform agendas throughout the world and including in Africa,

nothing was heard concerning this in the course of the interviews conducted. The possibility

for open access and open government data to support the CAADP and other policy

development processes by making relevant data and information more widely available and

useable including and particularly by grassroots and intermediary organizations would

suggest that this area should be actively examined. Open data might provide a low cost

means for supporting on-going CAADP and other multi-stakeholder processes where there

is currently an in-built disparity between data and information access among the various

stakeholders in these processes and where such a disparity will lead to decreased quality of

participation on the part of some stakeholders and overall a reduction in the efficiency and

effectiveness of these processes.

Develop or enhance ICT-based Extension Services

Concerns were expressed concerning a need for a new form of Extension Service (ES) (with

ICTs as a central enabling element) in rural areas. Existing ES's are either on the verge of

collapse or have effectively disappeared altogether in many countries with no viable

replacement. It should be possible for mobiles to provide at least some of the information

which was provided through the earlier ES's. However, in order for this to happen there is

the need for a very considerable planning and development effort (as for example, creating

information resources which may be easily accessible via mobiles and so on) and for the

extension of communications platform into currently underserved areas.


35

Create Opportunities for Rural Employment

Creating opportunities for rural employment is one way of curbing urban migration and as

such, deliberate efforts should be undertaken to conduct awareness campaigns on

community-oriented approaches to rural employment. Young people should be encouraged

to establish themselves as agro-entrepreneurs at various points in the value chain, either as

direct producers or as facilitators of information exchange, market access and distribution of

produce, all underpinned by the usage of ICTs. Intermediary organisations can play the role

of advocates for policy change as well as raising awareness both at grassroots and

government level. At national level, governments should earmark resources for youth

employment/entrepreneurship funds, targeted at creating opportunities in rural areas for

young people and should support the development of knowledge resources that benchmark

and showcase the use of ICTs in generating rural employment.

It is imperative to develop a business case around information packaging and value addition

through information services as a supplement to the simple provision of access (which is

evidently not sustainable) as the primary focus for community Internet facilities. In this way,

they would provide a local service as a repository of local information including from the

various components of the ARD policy processes, for local sharing and at the same time be

able to provide the means to search and package information of ARD interest to the local

community.

Establish Community-oriented Research Networks

There is a need to engender and popularize the tenets of community-oriented approaches

amongst researchers and connect the researchers to the grassroots communities through

intermediary organisations. Academic and research programmes along with the relevant

dissemination platforms would serve to encourage cross-disciplinary research and provide

evidence to inform and shape policy. Building on this would be the formation of networks of

researchers and intermediary organisations at regional level encapsulating expertise and

knowledge from both the agriculture and ICT sectors. This would serve the purpose of

facilitating information flows to and from the grassroots and would also serve to facilitate

cross-sectorial information flows. To enhance their effectiveness, the regional networks

could be linked to corresponding Regional Economic Communities which would then

facilitate linkages with policy makers both at regional level and at AU level.

Establish Community-driven knowledge-bases for Climate

Change

The gaps in collection of indigenous knowledge and in the inclusion of grassroots

communities in policy processes around climate change can be addressed through the

development of knowledge-bases structured to provide information at various levels:

community, national and regional level. The idea would be to use ICT-enabled platforms in a

bottom-up process to facilitate consultations and aggregate knowledge and information from

the community level to national level and from national level to regional level; the reverse

channels could then be used for top-down dissemination of information. In this context,


36

intermediary organisations operating at both a national and regional level would be key to

facilitating the necessary linkages.

Develop Sustainable Models for Market Information Systems

Efforts need to be put into developing sustainable business models for Market Information

Systems (MIS): an issue which seems to arise with many mobile ARD applications is their

longer term financial sustainability since the intermediary or service organizations that act as

information providers often rely on external funding and support.

The various MIS’s in Africa should also be enhanced and networked at regional and

continental level, favouring harmonization of procedures and exchange of best practices,

taking advantage of ICT innovations, and promoting market information on regional

commodities and agri-business issues.

Strengthen Intermediary Organisations

Intermediaries play a critical role in capacity building, advocacy and consolidating inputs

from grassroots level into ARD policy processes. There is thus a need for strengthening rural

ICT for development networks as intermediary between grassroots and national, regional or

global level ARD institutions.

Facilitate Citizen Participation through ICTs

The usefulness of a systematic approach to promoting ICT awareness in the community and

its relevance is of paramount importance. This will undoubtedly increase utilization, adoption,

and ownership of deployed ICTs. Therefore, there must be increased ICT awareness

campaigns countrywide, such as National ICT weeks, newspaper articles, ICT

competitions/awards and media campaigns.

Policy makers should harness new technologies most importantly mobile technologies and

social media so as to make more information public in ways that enable the public to both

understand what policy makers are doing and to undertake actions to influence their

decisions. This should come with the recognition that increasing access to technology entails

supporting the ability of citizens to use it. There remains the need therefore both for

intervention to support the extension and use of ICTs into very low income areas as

well as for support being provided for alternative means of access such as public

Internet facilities.

Governments should actively promote the involvement youth and women in the policy

process; as acknowledged by all development partners, good governance and the

participation of youth and women in the policy process is a key to development.

Institute Multi-sectorial, Multi-stakeholder platforms


37

The government should encourage and support the creation of consultation and dialogue

platforms between farmer groups, agricultural experts, ICT experts, policy makers and

development practitioners; opportunities should be given to young people to play a leading

role in these forums as one way of integrating them into national development.

To strengthen these dialogues there should be networking mechanisms among ICT and

ARD stakeholders, at national, regional and continental level. Very specifically, such

mechanisms should be instituted within the CAADP process. This would facilitate policy

coherence and alignment between the ICT and agriculture sector on e-agriculture policies

and strategies. Further, the CAADP process should consider the adoption of ICTs in its

consultative processes as a means of facilitating wider engagement and inclusion of

grassroots communities. This might require the development of tailor-made ICT

resources/software to facilitate policy processes in general and CAADP in particular.


38

Towards a Community-oriented Framework for ICT4ARD in

Africa48

Overview

In previous sections we have discussed challenges and gaps relating to the access to and

use of ICT for ARD policy making in Africa. We have also provided some recommendations

towards addressing those gaps and challenges. The following sections provide specific

recommendations and actions for implementing a community-oriented ICT4ARD framework

in Africa. More specifically, it identifies the need for focusing on the role of intermediary

organizations, provides an implementation framework by highlighting key stakeholders,

indicates strategic action points and key success factors. Lastly it propose a governance

structure for the framework.

Further investigation revealed gaps in the use of ICT to enable grassroots participation in the

policy process. The gaps are related to the issue of content, ICT awareness, infrastructure at

the grassroots level and most importantly gaps related to capacity building of intermediary

organizations and rural communities in the use of ICTs.

While some gaps would be addressed by advocacy and education at both the policy level

and the grassroots, ICT related gaps would be addressed in increasing access to ICT at

grassroots. A number of recommendations and action points have been provided to this

effect.

Policy processes that seek development objectives should seek out the ideas of

communities and development practitioners as an important foundation for success. Most

importantly, the policy conversation is a way of rooting development in the real world, while

policy failure often arises from the exclusion of very important stakeholders. The distance of

policy processes from grassroots communities and the level of complexity of the policy

conversation can also entrench exclusion, despite the best intentions. Community

informatics as an instance of community-oriented approaches to ICT4D is one way of

attempting to narrow the distance and manage the complexity, such that grassroots

participation becomes a realistic goal of NEPAD and CTA.

It is noted that grassroots policy participation is not yet a reality in Africa and presents a

significant challenge. Community driven development (CDD) emphasises the participation,

empowerment and devolution of responsibility for managing development processes to local

communities. This approach places the emphasis on communities having the capacity to

identify priorities, and design and implement initiatives as co-partners in development, not

merely as recipients. Community-oriented approaches can, through careful design, enable

community driven development49 and can promote policy engagement. However, it is highly

unlikely that grassroots communities will participate in policy processes, unless they are

simultaneously engaged in community driven development, as these are parallel processes.

Communities not engaged in ARD activity will have little contribution to make to ARD policy.

Thus, community-oriented approaches must improve the foundations of knowledge for ARD

by providing locally relevant content, information and knowledge flows, and sustainable

access to knowledge through affordable electronic media (infrastructures, devices and

48 Adapted from SA 49 Gurstein, 2007


39

content). They must examine the proposed modalities of ICT access and usage that will best

lay the foundations for policy participation, including contributing research-based knowledge

to the already existing experiential knowledge in communities.

The community-oriented ICT4ARD framework for policy participation is formulated in the

knowledge that the strategy for the adoption and effective use of ICT by a particular

community is determined by its specific characteristics, location and knowledge of the

opportunities that exist or that could emerge in that locale. Existing community-oriented

initiatives include a range of community networks, community technology centres (CTC),

telecentres, community communications centres, community knowledge centres, amongst

others. This approach is typically used for capacity building, advocacy and social

mobilisation, e-services delivery, entrepreneurial economic activities such as the

establishment of mobile telephony centres, cyber cafes, and content generation for

community portals50. The community-oriented approach seeks to embed ICTs in existing

community structures using existing social capital, rather than imposing externally designed

ICT solutions; this has been effectively explored in a few countries, notably Kenya and

Cameroon.

Challenges that face the adoption of the community-oriented approach in ARD policy-making

include the identification of locally relevant content to promote knowledge for policy-making;

the engagement of agricultural R&D institutions, other agricultural development institutions

and development practitioners in policy-making; and collaboration among networks of

development institutions and grassroots communities. Other challenges include the financial

viability and sustainability of such an approach ; the orientation of government to ensuring

community-oriented approaches are embedded in sectoral policy; and the promotion of

locally relevant policy that addresses the community’s needs.

Since the community-oriented approach is geared towards fostering development, it is useful

to understand the concept of e-development51. E-development requires the “production,

diffusion and utilisation of ICT”, as well as innovative applications and services, to create

economic and social well-being. ARD policy is most likely to positively contribute to

increasing rural employment and improving market access, where it is connected to other

initiatives in e-development, such as the community access programmes described above. A

community-oriented ICT4ARD policy framework should seek to build on existing community

initiatives in knowledge sharing as the basis for policy advocacy.

Information needs, access and use in development contexts relate closely to a person’s

occupation, level of socio-economic development, and local agro-ecological conditions. For

the rural poor, these needs relate especially to their occupations and basic survival goals,

but also to the need for economic progress from subsistence to cash crops to value added

farming and eventually to commercial farming. Such economic progress can be fostered by

policy which encourages improved access to knowledge produced by research institutes.

Collaboration with research institutions is necessary for participation in policy processes,

while the policies adopted should specifically encourage long-term community-research

collaboration.

Social, cultural and economic factors affect information needs (in general) and this can be

applied to the information needs of rural communities. This way of thinking about information

50 op.cit. 51 Abrahams and Goldstuck (2010)


40

access, not just ICT access is important for the design of a community-oriented ICT4ARD

policy framework.

A Community-oriented Framework for ICT4ARD Policy

A community-oriented framework is needed to facilitate the participation of rural agricultural

communities in ARD policy processes. This requires the processing and sharing of

knowledge about ARD, policy content and policy processes between rural communities, non-

governmental institutions, powerful policy advocacy groups and policy decision-making

institutions, preferably mediated by ICTs. Shared learning among small-scale farmers and

family farming households can contribute to building the rural knowledge base on ARD

issues, creating the basis for grassroots participation in policy processes on issues ranging

from climate change to market access. Knowledge sharing, shared learning and usage of

electronic communications are important foundations necessary for grassroots participation

in policy-making, as the distance between policy process activity and grassroots

communities is very great.

The design of the framework takes into account the types of stakeholders that particular

communities currently have access to, as well as local strengths and weaknesses in

stakeholder resources and capacities. Many rural communities will have weak linkages to

knowledgeable and influential stakeholders and have little opportunity to engage with

institutions such as FARA or with the national and or regional level institutions engaged in

regional policy-making. Grassroots communities will have little knowledge of the ideas and

approaches contained in various policy initiatives. Hence, an initial important step in the

design of a framework operating at for example, the SADC regional level would be to

create the platform for transfer of ARD knowledge along specific themes (eg. climate

change, market access, rural employment) to rural communities.

The design of the framework for policy participation is an important and large-scale social

innovation, incorporating a receiving end for knowledge sharing and an advocacy end for

grassroots participation. With respect to knowledge sharing, web-based content platforms

can easily aggregate available content, much of which is public or open access content, and

provide a knowledge portal on ARD which is specifically oriented to the knowledge needs of

grassroots and rural communities. However, it will need to utilise content translators, given

the current limitations of available translation engines for the many local languages on the

African continent, and making translation an issue for participation, as local translators will

need to be found in each country.

Secondly, in addition to facilitating availability and access to relevant information, the

framework should foster the usability of agricultural research knowledge within the local

context to meet needs for market or environmental information. Hence, the "push" features

for knowledge sharing should include audio and where possible video to address the local

literacy and information usage needs. Furthermore, rural agricultural communities would

require the services of infomediaries such as agricultural extension workers and other

professionals to interpret research and advice on the meaningful application of science and

technology. Utilisation of knowledge and experience of the outcomes of these applications

would further enable rural communities to participate in ongoing policy processes, as

participation is a function of experience on the ground. This approach will require public and

social investment, possibly through appropriate development financing institutions.


41

Thirdly, the design of the knowledge platform must be adaptable to mobile phone as the

most widely available access device in rural communities; and must be strongly marketed to

the radio stations, TV stations and the few telecentres that service rural communities.

Content platforms such as Mixit in South Africa have broken the barriers of access and

affordability and should be studied as a basis for innovation for grassroots knowledge

sharing. In this way they create the opportunity for linking grassroots communities with

research and advocacy groups such as RUFORUM and FARA, as face-to-face engagement

is not financially workable.

With respect to grassroots advocacy and policy participation, the design of the CI framework

incorporates the means for grassroots communities to push their views and knowledge to

the local, regional and international advocacy groups and directly to policy-making

institutions. In this regard, advocacy groups and stakeholder groups can collaborate in the

design and funding of a web-based, mobile access community informatics platform for ARD

policy advocacy.

Advocacy groups and stakeholder groups, while operating with limited funding, have greater

capacity to draw funding and human resources into the promotion of the community-oriented

framework than grassroots communities themselves, hence a strong collaborative venture

is the most likely way to achieve the goal of grassroots policy participation. The NEPAD

Agency can play an important facilitating role in encouraging collaboration and collaborative

While the advocacy and stakeholder groups would be engaged in creation of platforms and

sourcing of funding, as well as in providing the input for content aggregation and knowledge

sharing.

Many of these groups already have a community outreach function, though this can be

further developed to encourage real grassroots policy participation. Creating this next stage

of development will require medium term effort, as well as social and financial investment

over three to five years. An important aspect of stakeholder engagement is participation in

the many local governance systems operating in rural areas, including with groupings that

work in the agricultural arena. Key stakeholders are the universities, agricultural research

institutions and extension service operations that can raise the capacity of rural communities

for policy advocacy.

The content of the community-oriented framework should address specific fields of

agriculture (including fisheries and forestry) that are most widely practised in the countries of

the regions; key issues in environmental and climate change; as well as general themes

discussed in the terms of reference such as rural employment and market access. It will

need to convey the highlights of existing policy, their interpretations and meaning for local

communities; and continuous updates on policy processes. The content building process for

the framework will require focus on building a body of local content that directs attention to

the knowledge needs of localised communities, not just national requirements which are too

generic for meaningful engagement of grassroots communities. Local indigenous knowledge

can have value and should be documented as part of the agricultural R&D process and

should be made available side by side with new scientific knowledge in designing

appropriate applications and e-services. The content building process can invite grassroots

input through mobile forms of social media and electronic communications that do not

require Internet access, which content can feed directly through to policy advocacy.

Noting that mobile access is not available in many rural communities, that Internet access is

very low throughout the region and that telecentres are sparsely distributed and have not


42

proved to be a meaningful policy support, ARD stakeholders and advocacy groups should

lobby very strongly for more rapid advances in ICT infrastructure availability to rural areas,

including for ICT policy and regulation that push towards a digital agricultural economy

(stakeholders in other sectors would focus on advocating for digital economy advancement

in other productive and social sectors). It is noted that overcoming barriers to electronic

communications access might include power supply and electronic communications

infrastructure provision; identification of devices and applications that straddle digital and

non-digital ICTs; and tele-centre in a bus programmes among others.

Access to communications requires the preparation of strategies which can promote e-

services and e-development, not just simple ICT access. Hence, policy participation should

be aimed at communications policy and practice, as much as at agricultural policy; and in

particular, a grassroots CI network should push for synergies between agricultural and

communication/ICT policy, in other words, for e-development in agriculture.

A sustainable framework must create and build strong linkages to agricultural policy,

fisheries policy, environmental policy, trade policy, ICT policy and science policy

environments. While participation in agricultural, fisheries and environmental policy may be

priorities, associated areas of policy such as local and regional trade and ICT or science

policy cannot be neglected because they provide contributing factors to long-term

sustainable ARD.

The framework must enable engagement with national and local level policy-making in all

countries of the region. It must facilitate communication with the key national and regional

directorates for food, agriculture and natural resources; infrastructure and services; trade,

industry, finance and investment; and eventually social and human development on the

basis of the need for pushing forward basic and agricultural education in rural communities.

It must also enable inputs into regional policy change processes, including the SADC

Regional Agricultural Policy, the COMESA Agricultural Policy and the CAADP Pillar 2, all of

which will require renewal in the next decade.

Based on the foregoing, a proposed framework is presented in Figure 152 . In the framework,

participatory governance is the foundation of the community-oriented approach (level 1),

with the various players contributing according to their particular capacities and knowledge

inputs (level 2). But converting stakeholder capacities (level 2) into a working process to

enable participation in policy processes requires the design of basic systems and

procedures (level 3). As well, a mobilisation of new and traditional communications

technologies (level 4), in order to advance interactive information and knowledge flows (level

5) is needed as the foundation for advocacy. Notably these flows are based both on the

experiential knowledge of grassroots communities as well as on mediated research-based

information flowing from universities and other knowledge providers.

52

Taken from the Southern Africa regional study commissioned as part of the overall study


43

Integrated CI network for ARD stakeholders and ARD policy advocacy

Level 4 ICTs (new and traditional)

Radio, mobile, social media, collaborative tools on the Internet, telecentres

Level 5 Interactive Information and Knowledge Flow

Stakeholder driven knowledge content management linked to live policy processes, web-based + mobile communication platforms, knowledge sharing practices, contribution from knowledge infomediaries, indigenous knowledge inclusion

Level 3 Systems and Procedures

Stakeholder driven modus operandi, virtual learning systems, collaborative knowledge networks for policy orientation

Level 2 Stakeholder Capacity

Multiple roles of stakeholders, interest + commitment to connectedness, collaborative skills and knowledge sharing,

sustainable support system

Level 6 Stakeholder Relations

Stakeholder engagement, collaboration in physical, virtual and mobile spaces, and funding programme, for grassroots ARD

outreach and grassroots input to policy

Level 1 Participatory Governance

Participatory leadership, multi-stakeholder in nature, open access and flexible/semi-formal operations, inclusive policy process orientation

If the operations at levels 1 – 5 are reasonably effective, then stakeholder relations begin to

mature over time (level 6) and can produce an integrate network promoting rural

participation in policy-making. It is of the utmost importance to acknowledge the levels at

which formation of the network must occur and the time required for such formation.

Typically, community networks are built and develop over the medium term, i.e. three to five

years, not over the short term. Community, technology and knowledge content are

contributing agencies to effective, grassroots oriented policy-making.

For advances in the grassroots agricultural and fishing sector to be realised, policy

participation should concentrate on a few pivotal ARD areas, presenting the following groups

with opportunities for policy engagement: (a) smallholder farmers and fishing communities

that are located in productive or potentially productive areas and already have a basic level

of access to markets; (b) family farming households and fishing communities that are far

from markets but would benefit from improvements in food security and diversity of foods in

the local diet. A more detailed segmentation of user needs can produce clearer direction for

ARD content development and policy action over time.

Improved participation in ARD policy processes is necessary for localized development and

advances in living standards – the desired outcome of effective policy processes. However,

for this to occur, participation in ARD policy processes alone will not be sufficient to create

FIGURE 1 - FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED ICT4ARD


44

significant change in the economic livelihoods of rural smallholder farmers, in the absence of

influence on policy processes addressing other critical inputs such as credit, market

infrastructure, ICT infrastructure or education.

Thus the role of community-oriented approaches in addressing these supporting issues must

be thought through. Some policy focus areas, such as fostering market access through ICT

(promoting community use of ICT to obtain the current value of cash crops in the markets

where they are being sold and information on fair price), and promoting ICT access to rural

areas are very challenging and would require elaborate stakeholder partnerships, at the

policy advocacy and at the policy implementation stage. Those working on building

stakeholder partnerships must acknowledge that grassroots participation in ARD and related

policy processes must work through the full cycle from policy advocacy to monitoring policy

implementation and its effects on the rural communities.

Governance Structure

The following is a proposed governance structure for the community-oriented framework. We

have proposed three levels: the policy and strategic leadership level, the operations and

oversight level and the national level.

At the policy and strategic level would be institutions that have continental reach and

working under guidance of the African Union and the NEPAD Agency they would be

responsible for providing strategic leadership; providing thought leadership for policy

formulation and making the necessary linkages to decision makers and other related

initiatives at continental level.

The next level would focus on regional organisations (RECs and other sub-regional

organisations) and this level would translate the strategies at continental level into regional

programmes and initiatives. Main activities would be: fundraising; assisting in harmonization

of national, regional and global policies; research and development; networking; and

advocacy.

The last level operating in a national context would provide the links to the grassroots

through intermediary organizations. The intermediary organisations would also play a critical

role in capacity building, advocacy, advice, and consolidation of input from grassroots

organizations.

Operationalising the Framework

In order to achieve its goal of encouraging grassroots participation in ARD policy processes,

operationalization of the community-oriented framework design should be based on:

An assessment of the conditions under which rural smallholder farmers operate;

An assessment of the economic landscape and market dynamics in terms of the

prevailing output from agricultural activities in the locale;

General and ARD specific information and knowledge needs assessment;

An assessment of relevant agricultural R&D focus areas and disseminating

research knowledge to the communities where such knowledge has been

‘harvested’;

An assessment of the ICT infrastructure environment, and devices with local

appeal in order to inform what applications might be deployed successfully;


45

Identification of informal or formal knowledge networks for community engagement

with universities and other scientific and extension services and exploration of their

possible roles in community-based policy advocacy;

An exploration of the national and regional policy and governance landscape.

Promoting participant engagement early on in the design and implementation

process;

Considering feasibility and scope including sustainable operating methods, funding

and governance

While it would possibly take a year to establish the foundational community-oriented

framework and engage the relevant players, it will take several years to connect grassroots

communities to the policy processes, using community informatics. Effective policy

participation would require the following questions to be addressed on a continuous basis:

What policy/strategy information is required as the basis for grassroots participation

in ARD policy processes?

What information is required about regulatory obstacles that may inhibit ARD?

What are the information and knowledge needs of rural communities with respect to

agricultural R&D; market access; rural employment; climate change?

What information is available on these issues and in which forms is it available?

What R&D is being conducted and by whom, that can flow to rural communities?

What new, innovative forms of ICT4D are emerging which can be used or adapted to

making available knowledge for ARD policy participation?

What technology use approaches would benefit the flow of ARD knowledge to rural

communities?

How can community-oriented approaches be mobilised to enable grassroots

participation, given the distance between rural communities, rural farming

households and policy-making institutions?

Regular assessment, monitoring and reporting on ARD policy participation of rural

communities, as well as reporting on policy change in the regions and continentally will be

required. Localised interventions side by side with national or regional interventions working

through the “whole information chain” from planning to information provision to decision-

making to actions to results are also needed.


46

4. Conclusions and Way forward

The study has revealed that there is a role for ICT-enabled community-oriented approaches

to support grassroots participation in ARD policy processes. While there is a general

understanding of the value and potential use of ICTs, and an almost universal use of laptops

and the Internet by those actually involved in policy processes there is little actual use of

ICTs in more sophisticated ways for information management and for engagement with the

grassroots. As well there are no resources specifically designed to support the use of ICTs in

the policy processes.

The study has also shown that the role of intermediary organisations as connectors to the

grassroots cannot be over-emphasised and that strengthening the intermediaries is an

essential part of grassroots inclusion.

The lack of coordination on policy processes in the agriculture and ICT sectors, especially in

this age where ICT is a cross-cutting element of most sectorial strategies is also notable at

national and regional levels. There is thus a need to bring some convergence or at least

linkages between processes such as CAADP and ICT policy formulation so that there is an

alignment in areas of such widespread impact as rural employment, agriculture and rural

research, market access, and climate change.

Drawing on the findings and recommendations the following projects are suggested as initial

steps for the NEPAD Agency to undertake:

1. Integration of ICTs in CAADP Processes

The objective would be two-fold: to bring alignment between ICT e-strategies and

ARD using CAADP processes at national and regional level; and to develop an ICT-

enabled toolkit to facilitate CAADP processes.

2. Community-oriented Research Networks

The objectives would be to develop a research agenda for Community-oriented

ICT4ARD and to encourage the development of associated academic programmes.

3. Regional Multi-stakeholder Policy dialogues

The objectives would be to provide linkages at regional level between the various

stakeholder groupings and facilitate inputs into regional policy making for ARD. The

dialogues would be implemented as a proof-of-concept of the power of ICTs to

strengthen policy processes and would be themed around the 4 issue areas: Rural

employment, Climate change, Agricultural research and Market Access.

The Community-oriented ICT4ARD framework would be used in each of these projects,

adapted where necessary to suit the context. This would serve to test the relevance and

applicability of the framework and inform future work.

Strengthening Grass-Roots Participation in … Report | October 2013 Strengthening Grass-Roots...

Documents

Transcript of Strengthening Grass-Roots Participation in … Report | October 2013 Strengthening Grass-Roots...