LEISA 18.2
LEISA Magazine • 18.2 • July 2002
Changing information flows
Editorial
Access to information is one of the most valuable resources in agricultural
development. Today, the demand for agricultural information is stronger than
ever. The increased market integration that is experienced by even the most
remote farming communities greatly increases the pace of change. Events and
developments far away from home have profound effects on the livelihoods of
farmers. Information is needed:
• to exploit opportunities in time – like the many emerging niche
markets for organic products;
• to raise awareness about the potential negative impacts of current choices,
e.g. embarking on the use of genetically modified crops when more and more markets
don’t want them
• to get to know about the experiences of other farmers in order to search
for better opportunities and sustainable solutions, like the System of Rice
Intensification that is improving the livelihood for many rice farmers
The last decade has seen tremendous changes in information provision to farmers,
resulting from policy changes, financial crises and revolutions in information
and communication technology (ICT). In this issue we attempt to explore these
changes and what they mean to small-scale farmers in rural communities in the
South.
Public funded extension in crisis
Agricultural development has long been seen as a pre-requisite for economic
development in the society at large and thus it made sense for governments to
invest significantly in agricultural extension systems. Public funded agricultural
extension was a corner stone in development policies all over the world.
In developing countries the 1970s saw the fastest growth in national extension
systems – often they grew close to ten percent per year. However, in the
1980s the annual growth rate slowed down to a few percent and over the last
decade stagnation or even dismantling of extension systems has been on the agenda.
Farrington (p.6) provides more insight into the history of public extension.
The decreasing public support for agricultural extension is the result of many
factors, among them:
• severe and repeated financial crises in most developing countries;
• a shift in preference for private enterprises over government intervention
that is reflected in structural adjustment programmes imposed by international
donors but also by national governments – it is believed that private
companies are more efficient than the public sector in providing services;
• dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of impact by agricultural extension.
Today national extension systems are in dire straits with resources being cut
to a minimum. Many extension workers have been laid off or have left for opportunities
elsewhere and the ones who remain often lack the basics for their work like
transport and access to information. Staff morale is often low due to the inability
to perform their task well combined with continuous criticism from outsiders
who often do not understand the impossible working conditions of the extension
staff.
Exploring new ways to deliver information
For a long time nobody questioned the existence of public funded extension systems,
so the focus was on efficiency within the extension system instead of alternatives.
But the crisis in public extension services has led to a search for solutions
and alternatives. No universal prescription to the “problem” of
extension has emerged. Instead a pluralistic system is envisioned with many
players selling extension services, including NGOs, private companies and extension
departments. (Farrington, p.6) The thinking is that it will force every extension
provider to maximise efficiency and to provide relevant extension.
The Uganda National Farmers Federation (p.11) is an example of such a partnership
for agricultural extension. It is a young successful farmer organisation trying
to provide extension services on a cost-recovery basis by building alliances
with private companies and other actors.
There is much talk about the shared interests among the different actors in
agricultural development, but very little about the conflicts. Will these new
partnerships promote only highinput farming because the participating private
companies can earn money on selling the inputs? Or will they promote selfsufficiency
and low-input alternatives that may be in the interest of many farmers but undermine
the private companies? Only time will tell, but it is important to be aware
that these old conflicts do not disappear just because the different actors
take on a shared identity.
Another trend is the attempt to shift the workload from public paid extension
to farmers who have to do their own research and farmer-to-farmer extension.
This can be empowering and can stimulate endogenous development, but too often
the costs are not considered. It is important to remember that many farmers
suffer under labour constraints that will limit their possibilities of running
their own research and extension system and it does not solve the problem of
getting required information from outside.
The current trends point towards the development of a dual system in which
the farmers who can pay are served well whilst the poor farmers are left “empowered”
to do whatever they want but with resources to do nothing. The many new unconventional
partnerships between private, public and civil society will make it much more
difficult to see what is really going on.
What can modern ICTs offer?
And it is in this context that information and communication technologies are
seen as being able to change the landscape of rural information exchange. Most
of the experience as of now relates to information delivery in the developed
countries, which has been revolutionised over the last two decades through the
widespread adoption of computers and Internet connection. Here, it is now common
to have a computer at work and at least one at home.
The Internet spreads faster than almost any previous technology. It took radio
almost forty years to reach an audience of 50 million and for the Internet just
four. The amount of information available on the Internet is tremendous and
growing fast. Many international and national organisations make almost all
their publications available on the Internet. Publishing to the Internet is
easy, quick and almost free. Advocacy organisations like ETC have been able
to gain the benefits of ICTs as is seen in the interview with Pat Mooney on
p.26.
Most information on the Internet is available at no cost so the user “just”
has to find a way to get connected. This is easy and cheap in developed countries
due to the well-developed infrastructure; not so in many developing countries.
Computer equipment is expensive and reliable power supply and telephone connections
are not readily available. When the computers break down, spare parts and qualified
technicians are difficult to come by. There is also the problem of “computer
literacy”. Computers are much more difficult to use than other technologies
like radio, telephone, and fax, for which special training is required.
Thus it would be over-optimistic to think that everybody will soon have access
to the Internet. There are plenty of limitations and obstacles to be overcome
as pointed out by Morrow on p.9. However, there are some encouraging success
stories like that of the village information centres in Pondicherry, India (p.28)
and the Internet Radio project in Kothmale, Sri Lanka (p.25) Both these experiences
have been used to develop larger, global initiatives for improving Internet
access in rural communities.
Using all available means
Yet, for many farming communities in the South, modern ICTs are still a technology
of the future. Therefore, it is important not to forget the “old”
technologies and to use all available means in reaching people with the information
they require.
Radio is one such technology, which has penetrated deep into otherwise inaccessible
rural areas. Rural radio has a long and fine track record but is often overlooked
because of all the attention paid to the Internet. Developing Countries Farm
Radio, for example, broadcasts to nearly 100 countries in Latin America, the
Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa. (p.20). Its success has been in building a
network of broadcasters, radio stations and training organisations, which has
been able to keep pace with the changing times and provide their audiences with
globally-relevant information in a locally-adapted form. The case of Tadjik
Radio (p.16) is quite different. This article shows that it is not only technical
obstacles that need to be overcome to facilitate the access of information;
an attitude of participation and openness is also required.
Getting information to where it is most needed often requires creative partnerships.
The “In the field” project on p.22 is a partnership between researchers
of NRI, funders, people in the communities and broadcasters from BBC World Service.
The series, broadcast twice in 2001 and 2002, has been immensely popular and
has led to new partnerships: with schools in developing educational material
and with local radio stations for re-broadcasting in local languages. The radio
series was accompanied with a booklet, web site and a set of audiocassettes,
thus combining media to get the best impact.
For some rural communities, like the one mentioned on the back page, a printed
magazine is still the only shred of information they have access to. In places
with no power supply, no computers and telephones, magazines or newspapers can
still be read and passed around to others - information used and shared. And
even in not so remote places, magazines have an important role to play as demonstrated
by the “Ground Up” magazine of PELUM in Zimbabwe (p.13). It is popularising
ecological land management approaches, influencing policy makers to take note
of them, providing a forum for critical analysis of the approaches, encouraging
research and giving a southern perspective to development.
The message is clear - use all the means available, both the new and the old,
to change information flows and thus enable rural communities to access, share
and exchange experiences in sustainable agriculture.