Livelihoods Approaches to Information and Communication in ... · Executive Summary vi Key Policy Conclusions vii 1. Introduction 1 2. Sustainable Livelihoods and the Role of Information

Overseas Development Institute

BRID

GIN

G R

ESEA

RC

H &

PO

LIC

Y

Livelihoods Approaches to Information and Communication

in Support of Rural Poverty Elimination and Food Security

Robert Chapman, Tom Slaymaker and John Young

A collaborative research project with the UK Department of International Development and the Food and Agriculture

Organisation of the United Nations

Contents

Acronyms iv

Acknowledgements v

Executive Summary viKey Policy Conclusions vii

1. Introduction 1

2. Sustainable Livelihoods and the Role of Information and Communication 22.1 Sustainable livelihoods approaches 22.2 Information and communication in the context of SL 4

3. Better Information for Better Decisions 73.1 Information for farmers, institutions, governments and donors 73.2 Strategic importance of information 9

4. Existing Information Systems for Rural Livelihoods 124.1 Importance of existing systems 124.2 Information costs 144.3 Access, empowerment and democratisation 174.4 Appropriate content and context 21

5. Building on Existing Systems 235.1 Building capacity of existing systems 235.2 Realistic technological approaches 275.3 Strengthening partnerships 29

6. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations 336.1 Conclusions 336.2 Recommendations for policy action 34

References 36

Appendix 1: Document Summaries 40

Box 1: Definition of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) 5Box 2: Information, communication and livelihood assets 6Box 3: Balancing quality and utility of information 11Box 4: Integrating informal knowledge networks into formal information systems 13Box 5: Digital divides 14Box 6: InfoDev 18Box 7: Easy Internet access and Freeplay 20Box 8: Information content development 22Box 9: Audio-visual production services centre (CESPA) 25Box 10: Basic literacy before computer literacy? 26Box 11: Assessing the scale and context of information needs 28Box 12: Rural radio as an Internet intermediary 29Box 13: Considerations for inclusive, partner oriented information systems 32Figure 1: DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework 2Figure 2: Livelihoods information wheel 4Figure 3: The Knowledge Triangle of an AKIS/RD 14Figure 4: Hierarchical model of information flow and knowledge transfer between multiple levels 30Figure 5: Pluralistic ‘horizontal’ model of information flow and knowledge transfer between multiple levels 31Figure 6: Partnerships model for information and knowledge sharing between multiple levels 31Table 1: Types of decisions and information needs 8Table 2: Examples of realistic approaches 30

iii

Acronyms

AKIS/RD Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural DevelopmentALO Agricultural Liaison OfficerAMARC World Association of Community BroadcastersARTEMIS Africa Real Time Environmental Monitoring Information SystemCABI Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience InternationalCESPA Le Centre des Services de Production AudiovisuelleCGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCOAIM Consultation on Agricultural Information ManagementCOL Commonwealth of LearningCTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural CooperationDELIVERI Decentralised Livestock Services in the Eastern Regions of IndonesiaDFID Department for International Development, UKEMPRES Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and DiseasesENRAP Electronic Networking for Rural Asia/ PacificFAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsFIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information Mapping SystemGIEWS Global Information and Early Warning SystemIA Impact AssessmentICTs Information and communication technologiesIDRC International Development Research Council, CanadaIDGs International Development GoalsIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIICD International Institute for Communication and DevelopmentIIRR International Institute of Rural ReconstructionITU International Telecommunications UnionKIDS Keys Indicators Database SystemKIMS Key Indicators Mapping SystemLLL Linked local learningM&E Monitoring and evaluationMCTs Multi-purpose community telecentresMSSRF M. S. Swaminathan Research FoundationNIF National Innovations FoundationNGO Non-governmental organisationsPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperSDRE Sustainable Development Research and Extension DivisionSL Sustainable LivelihoodsSPFS Special Programme for Food SecuritySRISTI Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and InstitutionsSWAps Sector Wide ApproachesTAI Technology Achievement IndexUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganisationVAM Vulnerability Analysis and MappingVERCON Virtual Extension, Research and Communication Network

iv

Acknowledgements

v

This desk study was undertaken as the first phase of a collaborative research project by the Overseas Development Institute(ODI), the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO). The authors would particularly like to thank Dylan Winder of DFID and Stephen Rudgard of FAO for theirhelp finding and identifying the relative importance of the many DFID and FAO documents consulted. The authors wouldalso like to thank all the other colleagues in ODI, DFID and FAO who helped with the study and NR International whoprovided many of the pictures.

Robert Chapman is a Research Officer at ODI, within the Rural Policy and Environment Group, specialising in thesocioeconomic aspects of rural development including information communication technologies for development, naturalresource management, the environment and agriculture.Email: [email protected]

Tom Slaymaker is a Research Officer at ODI and a core member of the Water Policy Programme, specialising in social andeconomic aspects of natural resource management and rural development in the context of poverty reduction strategies.Email: [email protected]

John Young is a Research Fellow at ODI and leads the RAPID programme focusing on research–policy links and communications.He has been involved in action research, policy development and government service reform projects in Africa and Asia for thelast 15 years.Email: [email protected]

Livelihoods Approaches to Information and Communication in Support of Rural Poverty Elimination and Food Security

Livelihoods approaches have been the subject of much debatein recent years. Growing donor and development agencyexperience of implementing such approaches suggests theyhave considerable potential for improving the focus ofprogrammes, policies and the overall strategic coherence ofinterventions designed to promote poverty reduction and foodsecurity in developing countr ies. The Department forInternational Development, UK and the Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the United Nations jointly commissionedthis review of the theoretical background literature onsustainable livelihoods and the current context of informationand communication, to assist their strategic understanding ofthe role of information in support of sustainable livelihoods.The study focuses on the potential of livelihoods approachesto improve the impact of information and communicationinitiatives in developing countries. Althoughinformation and communication are widelyrecognised as basic and fundamentallyimportant elements of any developmentactivity, they remain poorly integrated withinemerging livelihoods approaches. This reporttherefore aims to bring together livelihoodsthinking with ideas from information andcommunication for development, in order toimprove understanding of the role andimportance of information and communicationin support of rural livelihoods.

It is widely acknowledged that a livelihoodsapproach provides a useful, logically consistentframework for thinking through the complexissues influencing the lives of the poor. Inparticular it draws attention to ways in whichpolicies, institutions and decision-makingprocesses influence resource access andownership, and determine strategic livelihood options availableto poor households. Information and communication systemsare crucial in this regard, both in generating informationrequired by the rural poor to make decisions on livelihoodstrategies, and in generating information required byinstitutions responsible for making decisions about policiesand processes that affect those strategies. In each case, it isonly through improved information that individuals andinstitutions can make informed choices about the opportunitiesand constraints associated with agriculture-based strategies.

However, improved information alone is not sufficient forimproved decision-making. Decision-making is a politicalprocess and promoting multi-stakeholder participation indecision-making processes is a key concern. Furthermore,different stakeholder groups each have specific informationneeds and delivery preferences. Highly differentiatedinformation needs assessment is essential in order to effectivelysupport decision-making at different levels. It is evident thateffective promotion of poverty reduction and food securityrequires changes in institutions and attitudes, knowledge and

information levels, processes and skills. Improved understandingof the capacity of decision-makers at different levels to makeuse of the information provided is key for the identificationof appropriate systems and institutions for the delivery ofrelevant information.

Enhancing the quality and quantity of information also relieson attention to the flow of information, such as the means ofcommunication, format and content. Information canpotentially have a catalytic role but much depends on itsreliability and relevance to the needs of particular user groups.There is a necessary trade-off between the level of technicaldetail involved in information collection and analysis, and thepractical usefulness of that information. Standardisation oftechniques of information collection, storage and presentation

is important, both to improve efficiency ininformation handling within agencies andalso to ensure that information can be usedexternally by other agencies, therebyfacilitating greater cross-sectoralcommunication and coordination. Equallyimportant is developing effective means ofprioritising information needs at differentlevels. Improved information can enablepeople to better defend their interests andarticulate their needs; it increases theirbargaining power and ability to influencedecision-making processes which affectthem. Transparency is equally important ifinformation is to empower people to makebetter decisions. Improved communicationsystems can enable individuals to organiseas groups and use information to holdinstitutions and authorities accountable.

A notable feature of livelihoods thinking is that it promotesan approach to development problems that transcendsindividual sectors. Building cross-sectoral, multi-disciplinarypartnerships is a complex challenge. Success will ultimatelydepend upon the establishment of effective systems ofinformation and communication which facilitate multi-levelknowledge partnerships between different stakeholders in ruraldevelopment strategies. However in terms of the practicalimplementation it is important to be realistic. Livelihoodsapproaches do not necessarily aim to address all aspects of thelivelihoods of the poor. The intention rather is to employ aholistic perspective in the analysis of livelihoods, in order toidentify a manageable number of key entry points whereintervention could be strategically important for effectivepoverty reduction, either at the local level or policy level. Thisrequires identifying existing opportunities and strengths andbuilding on them. Rural communities often have welldeveloped local information and communication networksthat have frequently been overlooked in the past but there isnow growing interest in finding ways to integrate thesenetworks more effectively within new systems.

Executive Summary

vi

Pho

to ©

Chr

is S

tow

ers/

Pan

os P

ictu

res

Woman washing clothes in slums,beneath a huge satellite dish

Executive Summary

Key Policy Conclusions

1. Build on existing systems:Many donor-driven information systems are overly ambitious,overly complex, and over-designed. They tend to overlookthe fundamental organisational processes and institutionalincentives that drive information use and ignore potential‘losers’ who may subsequently resist implementation.Experience shows that the most effective systems are simpleand modest, and build on existing databases and data collectingroutines, to provide specific information to specific users, toinform decisions for which they are accountable. Strongsupport from internal ‘champions’ and clear rewards toindividuals for contributing information are also importantfactors. There is a danger the current focus on Internet-basedinformation systems in developing countries will underminerich and effective existing information networks. There aremany good examples of innovative mechanisms to bridge thegap between the Internet and rural areas through rural radio,high frequency radio links or village Internet booths, and ruralservice providers.

2. Determine who should pay:Until recently there was an assumption that information foragricultural and rural development is a global public goodand should be made freely available to all. More recently donorsand governments have been shifting towards the private sectorprovision of agricultural extension services and information,and so poorer farmers are losing out. Capital investment costsfor information infrastructure are high, but they are easy tocalculate and there are many examples of successful costrecovery through charges for telephone use and advertising.It is more difficult to calculate the actual and hidden costs ofproviding information that empowers poorer farmers, and thesocial and economic benefit of doing so, without which it isdifficult to justify public investment. Furthermore, costrecovery or profitability is only one of a wide range of factorsinfluencing the sustainability of information services. Morework is urgently needed to explore these issues, to develop anew consensus on who should pay for information for poorerfarmers, and how sustainable information services can beprovided.

3. Ensure equitable access:Although the technological capacity to transfer informationacross large distances has increased rapidly in recent years, thereis evidence that if it is not available to all, it may simplyperpetuate existing social, economic and political disparities.Television and radio remain much more widely accessible thanthe Internet, especially in Africa. However there are goodexamples of initiatives in Africa and Asia where poor peoplehave access to and control over electronic information serviceswith positive livelihoods and governance outcomes.Experiments with telecentres and Internet-linked ruralcommunity radio have shown that it is possible to makeInternet-based information available to large numbers ofpeople. The challenge is to apply these pilot approaches morewidely to enable rural communities, and their governments,in developing countries, to manage information moreeffectively and develop communication strategies that makeinformation relevant to people’s livelihood needs accessibleto the poor.

4. Promote local content:Farmers trust endogenous and local information more thanexogenous information. Although issues and problems can beillustrated with examples from elsewhere, farmers are unlikelyto believe solutions, or be motivated to adopt them, withoutsubstantial discussion of locally specific examples. In thiscontext, information on food and agriculture should beparticularly focused on local agro-ecological conditions,weather and topography, as well as local cultural and economicaspects of production, marketing and processing. Supportingcommunication between relevant local institutions may bemore important than providing content from the Internet atlocal level, although the Internet and interactive televisionhave been used successfully by farmers to discuss specific localproblems with remote technical specialists. There is alsoenormous potential to enrich information in national andinternational information systems with specialised localknowledge, although this requires both a detailedunderstanding of the local context and a sophisticated capacityto tailor information appropriately for both local and nationalor international audiences.

5. Build capacity:There is a critical need to build capacity at all levels to improveinformation for livelihoods. Intergovernmental agencies needgreater capacity to work on international informationtechnology infrastructure, policies and standards. Internationaland bilateral agencies need capacity to help governments buildpartnerships with the private sector to develop nationalinformation systems and strategies. At sub-national level thereis a need to develop and extend electronic networks, and linkthese with rural areas. Local capacity in information collection,storage and dissemination will also need to be enhanced inorder to bridge the gap between information providers andusers. Education leading to basic literacy and numeracy,especially for marginalised groups, is a priority for improvinglocal capacity to use and generate information, and localgovernment and non-government institutions need to bestrengthened and encouraged to provide more informationlocally, for local dissemination, and to contribute to nationalsystems.

6. Use realistic technologies:Information and communication initiatives for developmentare expanding exponentially. Coordination is impossible, andthe emphasis is now on developing a realistic set of compatibletechnologies to facilitate the exchange of information betweendifferent systems. Even in developed countries there are fewgood examples of the successful integration of informationtechnology with realistic information strategies. There is littleeffective monitoring and evaluation due to the lack of newapproaches to evaluation appropriate for the new technologies,making it difficult to even identify the key lessons. Nevertheless,computer-based information technologies are increasinglyapplied to rural development, even in the most remotecircumstances, despite the fact that the vast majority of therural poor – who remain the target beneficiaries of mostdevelopment programmes – only use information that iscommunicated by word of mouth. It is essential to be morerealistic about information technology. In developing countriesthe most realistic approach is often to use a combination ofthe old and the new technologies and link them.

vii


7. Build knowledge partnerships:Information systems for livelihoods need to be able to shareinformation horizontally between organisations at the samelevel – for example, research institutes or farmer organisations,and vertically between organisations at different levels – forexample, different tiers of government, or national researchinstitutes and local extension agencies. Vertical systems workbest between a few highly integrated hierarchical organisationswith compatible information systems. Horizontal systemsthrive in an environment where many different organisationsform a constantly changing network of partners wishing toshare very specific information. In the new network age, anew model for information and knowledge sharing is needed,with more flexible and participatory processes operating withina loose but compatible global information network. Dynamicand flexible partnerships can be established between individualsand organisations at any level and the boundaries betweenthe levels effectively disappear. Community knowledgepartnerships that can develop mechanisms to deal with theproblems of connectivity and information literacy, andincorporate local and external knowledge, can directly benefitpoor people. This approach could replace the traditional processof a‘one-way’ flow of information from a scientific, informationrich core to a remote information poor community, withdynamic information sharing partnerships with a two-wayflow of information at every level.

viii

1

Introduction

In the current context of an information and communicationrevolution it has been argued that a ‘digital divide’ is threateningto further undermine many developing countries’ alreadyfragile prospects for future development. The concern is thatthe negative impact of a so-called digital divide would manifestitself in terms of a further reduction in the equitabledistribution of information. In the broadest terms, this debaterefers to information of all types, including cultural, historicaland entertainment. The underlying concern, however, amongstsocial development agencies is that in a globalising worldmarket, the arrival of truly global communication technologiesholds the potential to directly influence people’s livelihoods.In fact, it is predominantly to that end that Information andcommunication technologies (ICTs) are being developed andcombined to provide businesses with powerful tools to develop,manage and market a vast array of products and services.

The developed world has entered an information age wheremore and more people rely on high-tech information servicesand communication networks. In many developing countrieseven the most fundamental information resources areunavailable to the majority of the population. Nevertheless,those living in developing countries are only too aware of theimportance of information to the way they make a living andinformation systems exist at many levels despite the absenceof new technologies. The information technology revolutionis occurring at such a pace that even its impact on developedcountries is difficult to ascertain, let alone the predominantlyagriculture-based economies of much of sub-Saharan Africa.

Therefore, in order to further understand how informationand communication can contribute to wider developmentobjectives of sustainable economic growth which equitablybenefits those living in developing countries it is necessary toconsider the existing role of information in people’s livelihoods,the current communication context and how recentdevelopments might influence them. Knowledge, informationand communication have been a strategic focus of developmentagencies and governments alike for over half a century(Chapman and Slaymaker, 2002). A focus on livelihoods andthe multi-faceted context of poverty is more recent, butinherent in these approaches is recognition of the importanceof an individual’s balanced portfolio of assets in whichknowledge, access to information and a means to communicateare essential components.

This report is the result of a desk review jointly commissionedby Department for International Development, UK (DFID)and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) to research the theoretical background literature onsustainable livelihoods and the current context of informationand communication, to assist with the preparation of a strategicprogramme on information in support of sustainablelivelihoods. Much of the research was carried out during thesecond half of 2001 and the detailed assessments of DFID’s andFAO’s programmes focussed on those in existence at that time.

However, it was felt that many of the findings of the reportare of relevance to a wider readership, including those involvedin rural and agricultural development, projects and programmesusing sustainable livelihood approaches and those addressinginformation equity concerns, for example using newinformation and communication technologies (ICTs). Thereport has therefore been revised to enable policy-makers anddecision-makers from a wide spectrum of developmentorganisations to incorporate strategic approaches toinformation and communication into their work and buildon many of the livelihoods approaches already beingimplemented.

The study focused on the work of FAO and DFID, particularlyin relation to operationalising sustainable livelihoods (SL)approaches, and on inter-agency collaboration. While thethematic focus is on agricultural and rural development issues,many of the issues and recommendations are applicable toinformation systems more generally. Section 2 provides a usefulbackground to the theoretical and conceptual developmentof sustainable livelihoods approaches and introduces morerecent thinking on the role of information and communicationin such approaches. Section 3 looks at the stakeholders involvedin using information at different levels, and the importance ofinformation and communication in support of decision-making at every level. The importance of understandingdifferent ‘user’ requirements is a theme that runs throughout,based on core SL principles that approaches should bedifferentiated, people-centred and multi-level.

Sections 4 and 5 draw from the literature some of the keyissues to be considered by policy-makers to ensure thatinformation interventions are designed with the end user andbeneficiary in mind. Given the fact that much of the SLliterature does not explicitly deal with the role of informationand communication, a particular emphasis is placed on therole of existing information systems in support of livelihoods.Section 4 deals with the key issues that need to be consideredby policy-makers in order to understand and analyse existingsystems; how they work in terms of institutional arrangements,costs, access and content. Section 5 explores how to build thecapacity of information systems and that of their users; andthe relevance of SL principles in ensuring system developmentis dynamic, sustainable and conducted in partnership.

Section 6 provides conclusions and recommendations on thekey issues that policy-makers should consider when designingand implementing information and communicationprogrammes or adopting livelihoods approaches for ruraldevelopment and food secur ity interventions. Thecomprehensive list of references provides an opportunity forfurther reading and follow-up. An annotated bibliography isincluded for selected references as an additional informationresource for policy-makers. This is intended to make some ofthe key points discussed in the background literature easilyaccessible for rapid reference whilst also encouraging morein-depth research.

1. Introduction

2


Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) approaches and their applicationhave been subject to considerable debate in recent years. Thereis now substantial literature available on the topic relating toboth theoretical developments and, increasingly, donor anddevelopment agency experience of implementation.1 As notedby Krantz (2001), donor interpretations of an SL approachcommonly incorporate the following:

1. A set of principles: these specify that developmentalactivity should be:

• People-centred: beginning with people’s own views of theirpriorities, opportunities and needs, the approach works outtechnically and financially feasible responses. In this way, itseeks to be responsive and participatory;

• Differentiated: it recognises that the characteristics of poverty,and appropriate policy responses, differ among differentgroups of the poor;

• Multi-level: it recognises that poverty cannot be addressedby local action alone: approaches are needed which linkthe local level perspectives obtained by SL into higher-level processes of designing and implementing policieswhich impinge on the poor;

• Conducted in partnership: between public and privatesectors – both NGOs and private commercial agencies haveroles to play which complement those of government;

• Sustainable: in several dimensions – economic, institutional,social and environmental, but this does not imply set patternsof livelihoods which must be sustained indefinitely; on thecontrary, livelihoods are recognised as…

• Dynamic: in the sense that the poor manage complex‘portfolios’ of a number of (usually) part-time activities,changing the balance among them with changes in theopportunities and constraints they face.

2. Sustainable Livelihoods and the Role of Information and Communication

2.1 Sustainable livelihoods approaches

The principles are intended as a basic guide to more poverty-focused development and encapsulate the essential aims ofSL.

2. An analytical framework (providing a broad andsystematic understanding of the var ious factors thatconstrain or enhance livelihood opportunities and how theyrelate to each other).

The framework is a useful means of highlighting key aspectsof the approach and the way they relate to each other but isnot intended to capture all of SL thinking. Rather it is one ofmany tools which can be employed when implementing anSL approach.

3. A developmental objective (i.e. to enhance the overalllevel and sustainability of livelihoods to reduce poverty).

An SL approach therefore aims to bring together the lessonsof ‘best practice’ in a set of guiding principles. It also notablyprovides a common framework and language for analysts andpolicy-makers from different sectors, emphasising cross-sectoralcollaboration and providing space for different disciplines towork together towards a common goal (Ashley and Carney1999). The potential of SL as an analytical tool is perhaps greatestin project design. A central focus of analysis is in understandinghow existing policy and resulting institutions and structuresaffect the livelihood outcomes and strategies of the poor.Specifically, it recognises that access to different types of capitalassets,3 the ability to put them to productive use and to reducerisk and vulnerability are central components of growing outof poverty. Importantly, it emphasises that the poor do haveassets, options and strategies, and that they are decision-takers.

LIVELIHOODSTRATEGIES

� NR based

� Non NR based

� Migration

� More income

� Increased income

� Reducedvulnerability

� Improved foodsecurity

� More sustainableuse of NR

LIVELIHOODOUTCOMES

TRANSFORMINGSTRUCTURES& PROCESSES

STRUCTURES� Level of

government

� Privatesector

INSTITUTIONS

Influence

CAPITALASSETS

Financial

Natural

Social

Physical

VULNERABILITYCONTEXT

� Trends

� Shocks

� Culture

� Environment

Figure 1: DFID�s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework2

Source: after Carney et al. (1999)

� Laws

� Policies

Human

3

Sustainable Livelihoods and the Role of Information and Communication

As such it provides a useful, logically consistent way of thinkingthrough the complex issues influencing the livelihoods of thepoor (Farrington et al., 2001).

SL approaches therefore have an important contribution tomake in enriching the quantitative and economics-basedframeworks commonly used in assessing and designing policyand programme interventions, and can support the design ofdevelopment strategies by ensur ing that they focusappropriately on the poor. In particular the balance needs tobe right between sets of interventions focusing on theproductive sectors and those focusing on social protection orconsolidation (Norton and Foster 2001). At the level of countryprogramme/strategy design and management the focustherefore is on the pursuit of sustainable livelihoods as an overallpolicy objective. These issues are increasingly being consideredin the context of how organisations operationalise SLapproaches in their work.

Operationalising SL Approaches

Carney et al. (1999) compared the approaches of four keyproponents of SL (DFID, Oxfam, CARE and UNDP).Variations in emphasis and interpretation are revealed but it isnoted that at a conceptual level commonality exceeds variation.Elsewhere DFID stresses that there are many ways of applyinglivelihoods approaches (there is not one single approach), butthat the basic underlying principles are fundamental andcommon to all approaches (DFID, 1999).

A notable feature of the SL approach is its emphasis on multi-sectoral collaboration and coordination. As such it encouragesinnovative partnerships between government departments, publicand private sector, civil society and international developmentagencies. Enhancing information and communication processeswithin and between agencies is a key area of concern.

An Inter-Agency Forum on Operationalising SL Approaches,held in Siena in March 2000, produced strong agreement onthe guiding principles that underpin SL approaches (FAO,2000d). However, at the same time it was noted that the toolsand methods used to implement them are not specific to SLmethodology. Furthermore some of the approaches, such asparticipation, which underpin the SL guiding principles, arealready well-established in the work of agencies such as theFAO (Chapman, 2001). The need to understand and facilitateeffective linkages between micro-level livelihood systems andtheir policy environment is well recognised, but the particularrole and responsibility of different agencies in interventions atdifferent levels varies according to their comparative advantage,individual mandate and scale of operations. For exampleUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and DFIDtend to have higher level entry points than non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs) and agencies working on the ground.However, there is clear scope for greater collaboration andcomplimentary activity, with different agencies building ontheir various existing strengths.

The Inter-Agency Forum noted the following key lessonsfrom SL approaches:

� shift the focus from resources to people and from livelihoodconstraints to people’s strengths;

� emphasise the relationship between people’s assets and theirresilience in the face of external shocks, highlighting howpoverty contributes to vulnerability;

� focus on the synergy between natural, physical, financial,human and social capital;

� stress outcomes rather than outputs;� prioritise early diagnosis, demand-driven implementation

and the establishment of feedback mechanisms;� emphasise project design as an iterative process involving

continual learning and adaptation on the basis of feedbackfrom unfolding implementation;

� ensure economic, institutional, social and environmentalsustainability through adoption of exit strategies in the earlystages of programme implementation;

� foster interdisciplinary teamwork;� stress the interdependence between ‘real life experiences’

and the broader policy context as the basis for forgingbottom-up micro-macro linkages to bring about policychanges;

� encourage innovative partnerships.

In terms of the practical implementation of SL approaches itis important to be realistic. The SL approach does notnecessarily aim to address all aspects of the livelihoods of thepoor. The intention rather is to employ an holistic perspectivein the analysis of livelihoods, in order to identify a manageablenumber of key entry points where intervention could bestrategically important for effective poverty reduction, either atthe local level or policy level (Krantz, 2001). Identifying themost effective entry points for SL remains a key issue for furtherclarification, however there is no reason why priority areasshould not be sector specific, provided they adequately addressthe needs of the poor. Large donors are increasingly movingfrom supporting projects towards budgetary support andsector-wide approaches (SWAps) and Gilling et al., (2001)notes that SL approaches can add value to sector-basedapproaches by emphasising diversity and cross-sectoral linkages,and have the potential to make them more effective in reducingpoverty.

The UNDP4 has developed a number of notable tools tofacilitate the implementation of SL programmes at countrylevel. These include:

� A manual for Participatory Assessment and Planning forSL (PAPSL);

� A programme support document template that can be usedby UNDP country offices;

� A discussion paper on how indicators of SL can bedeveloped;

� Guides for the analysis of technology, environment,governance, community participation and monitoring andevaluation (M&E).

Other work in progress includes a typology of SL systems,guidelines for micro-macro cross-sectoral policy analysis,and a policy paper on SL that outlines the policy shifts neededto promote SL (Carney et al., 1999). A further key issue is theneed for SL-driven policy analysis to go beyond policy contentand consider policy processes. Thomson (2000) argues that

4


the best possibility for achieving asustainable improvement inlivelihoods policy is to focus onincreasing civil society andstakeholder participation in thepolicy process. This raises anotherset of issues about the presentcapacity and resources available toappropriate organisations to activelyengage in the policy process, withimportant implications for donorsupport strategies.

More recently, literature on SLapproaches has sought an increasedfocus on power relations, institutions and politics. There isgrowing interest in the links between and relative merits ofrights-based approaches and SL (see for example Farrington,2001). Rights-based approaches tend to place greater emphasison the need to increase the power and rights of the poor ifpoverty is to be addressed. Moser et al. (2001) assess thepotential for fusion between the idea of rights and SLapproaches to produce a ‘livelihood rights approach’ anddistinguish between a set of normative, analytical andoperational principles. It is useful to note the distinctionbetween the ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ sides of rights-basedapproaches. SL arguably over-emphasises the ‘providerperspective’, whereas empowerment remains a primary focusof many NGOs, e.g. Save and CARE. Oxfam in particularemphasise the ‘right to a sustainable livelihood’ but then seeksto deliver against specific objectives/outcomes on food, income,employment security etc. It is also increasingly concerned withvalue-chain analysis, markets and livelihoods, and issues ofpower and powerlessness in markets and trade (Hussein, 2002).

2.2 Information and communicationin the context of SL

Information and communication issues currently receive onlylimited treatment in the literature on SL approaches but arecentral components in the framework in that they providethe linkages that maintain its dynamic structure. The framework(see Figure 1) serves to highlight the processes that contributeto a set of livelihood outcomes and is not a static map of thestructures alone. In order to achieve desired livelihoodoutcomes information must be communicated throughout theframework to inform decision-making at every level. Througha process of iterative diagnosis and feedback, informationgenerated within the SL framework should contribute to aconstant learning process that influences project design andcontributes to poverty focused institutional and policy reform(Pasteur, 2001a). SL thinking illustrates that there are manydifferent livelihood strategies that can be developed by workingwith the assets, policies, principles and institutions in eachcontext to affect positive change. In each and every case,information and communic-ation are central driving forcesof change.

Understanding the local level information needs of the ruralpoor, as the ultimate beneficiaries, is centrally important tothe development of effective projects, programmes and policies

in support of SL. The particular role of information at thelivelihood level can be usefully conceptualised in terms of alivelihoods information wheel as shown in Figure 2.

In order to help define the role of information in support ofSL the diagram separates information into two categories (Aand B). These categories are not intended to represent twocompletely distinct types of information but rather the dualrole that information can play in support of sustainablelivelihoods over time.

A represents the information for long-term capacity buildinginvolving education, training and technical support appropriatefor the livelihood development of individuals or groups. Thiscore information contributes to the enhancement of anindividual’s knowledge. It improves understanding of thesystems and processes that can affect the way that assets areused in the longer term, and assists in the planning of livelihoodstrategies. B represents information for short-term decision-making that is used to maximise the potential of a particularasset at any one time, reduce vulnerability to shocks andrespond to immediate needs.

The two types of information can support any one or all of anindividual’s assets but the relative importance of informationrelating to a particular asset is largely context specific. Thetypology (A+B information to support long-term livelihoodstrategies and short-term livelihood activities) is not intendedto be comprehensive in its representation of the role ofinformation in support of SL but is indicative of a systematicand differentiated approach to information needs assessmentthat can usefully inform the design of more people-centredpolicies and programmes in support of SL. The livelihoodsinformation wheel provides a reference point to help focusproject design on differentiated information needs.

Participatory approaches underpin SL and a particular valueof the approach lies in the inclusive, non-threatening processof designing poverty interventions that it encourages, inaddition to whatever improved project/programme outcomesit achieves (Farrington et al., 2001).

Information and communication initiatives are key toenhancing the benefits of this process. A people-centredapproach can also help the poor to use information andcommunication technologies for their own needs rather thanjust receiving information in the form of messages from

Figure 2: Livelihoods information wheel

� A is the core information that contributes tolong-term capacity building for decision-making as to appropriate livelihoodstrategies, usually through education andtraining, and technical support andassistance with problem solving.

� B is the information that relatespredominantly to the local context and needsupdating regularly for people to make short-term decisions regarding their immediatelivelihood activities. It can also contribute tomedium-term diversification and livelihoodstrategies.

A

B

HumanCapital

SocialCapital

FinancialCapital

NaturalCapital

PhysicalCapital

5

Sustainable Livelihoods and the Role of Information and Communication

external sources (Norrish, 1998). This requires enhanced two-way information flows between beneficiaries and policy-makers. For example, the Farmer Field Schools developed byFAO as part of an Integrated Pest Management project inIndonesia use a methodology that helps to focus on localknowledge and experience and ensures that the participatorylearning process is one that is shared between the farmers(Coldevin, 2000).

The lessons from Farmer Field Schools are being integratedinto other sectors such as community forestry and are a goodexample of how many of the principles of SL are already beingapplied by organisations such as the FAO. SL thinking, however,can further help to reveal the types of information whichmight best contribute to FAO’s food security and povertyobjectives, either by providing for the information needs ofthe poor directly, or by enhancing the quality and quantity ofinformation available to institutions responsible for makingdecisions which affect the poor. It emphasises the importanceof a detailed assessment of the needs of target beneficiariesand stakeholder groups in order to identify the mostappropriate institutions and policy processes for effectiveprogramme implementation.

Debate regarding new ICTs centres on the identification ofopportunities for the poor to use ICTs to manage informationthat is appropriate for their different needs. This requires ‘localappropriation’ of ICTs by communities so that they can beadapted to their own social, economic and cultural processes(Michiels and Van Crowder, 2001).

SL approaches focus attention on the relationship betweenpeople’s assets and their resilience in the face of external shocks,in particular the relationship between poverty and vulnerability.This can usefully inform a differentiated approach toinformation needs assessment by highlighting the potentialrole of information in enhancing the different livelihood assets.Box 2 illustrates some examples of how information cansupport the livelihood assets of the poor and in particularhow ICTs can improve the flow of information to supportsustainable livelihoods.

SL approaches aim to be flexible, responsive and participatory,prioritising early diagnosis, demand-driven implementationand the establishment of effective feedback mechanisms. Thedesign and management of SL projects is an iterative processinvolving continual learning and adaptation on the basis offeedback from unfolding implementation (Pasteur, 2001b).Information in support of SL therefore has a dual function: tosupply the information required by the poor in order to pursuesustainable livelihood strategies; and to supply informationrequired by institutions responsible for making decisions thataffect those strategic livelihood options. Information relatingto market prices, for example, if packaged correctly can respondto the immediate needs of farmers. However, a multi-levelapproach will both deliver information on market prices tothe village level in an appropriate format, and incorporateinformation (on yields, market prices and farmers incomes)from the local level into national productivity and vulnerabilityassessments, e.g. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).SL provides a holistic perspective which can assist in theidentification of priority activities and appropriate entry points,based upon an improved understanding of the potentialsynergies between targeted interventions at different levels.

It is evident that effective promotion of sustainable livelihoodsrequires changes in institutions and attitudes, knowledge andinformation levels, processes and skills. Improved understandingof skills at different levels enables the identification ofappropriate systems and institutions for the delivery ofinformation in support of SL. The role of information indecision-making will therefore be discussed in the followingsection, exploring the importance of information for theinformation needs of individuals and institutions at differentlevels and for developing strategies and policy-making.

Box 1: Definition of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)

ICTs are those technologies that can be used to interlink information technology devices such as personal computers withcommunication technologies such as telephones and their telecommunication networks. A PC or laptop with e-mail andInternet provides the best example. Michiels and Van Crowder (2001) have defined ICTs �as a range of electronictechnologies which when converged in new configurations are flexible, adaptable, enabling and capable of transformingorganisations and redefining social relations�. The range of technologies is increasing all the time and �there is a convergencebetween the new technologies and conventional media� (Michiels and Van Crowder, 2001: 8). This rapid and ongoingconvergence means that devices such as digital cameras, digital video cameras and players, personal digital assistants,slide projectors and mobile telephones are also compatible with more traditional media such as radio (digital, satellite),and television (cable, digital, satellite), so that most devices can now be linked to others to share and exchange informationand allow it to be used in such a way that they can also be categorised as ICTs. Even books are being incorporated intoICTs, either through the potential for informal web publishing or more formal digital book publishing with designatedreaders or �e-books�. ICTs, therefore, are an expanding assembly of technologies that can be used to collect, store andshare information between people using multiple devices and multiple media.

(Chapman and Slaymaker, 2002)

IPM facilitators assisting farmers to interpret their observationsat the Farmer Field School, Cambodia

Pho

to ©

FAO

6


1 Livelihoods Connect (www.livelihoods.org) is a web-basedplatform designed to promote information sharing andlesson learning between agencies implementing SustainableLivelihoods approaches. It is funded by DFID-UK.

2 Diagrammatic frameworks used by different agencies tothink about SL tend to vary.

3 SL approaches typically distinguish five asset categories:human, social, natural, physical and financial.

4 See www.undp.org/sl

Box 2: Information, communication and livelihood assets

ICTs impact on livelihood assets in a number of ways depending on the local context in which they are introduced.Assuming open-access, community models such as telecentres (IDRC: Acacia Initiative, UNESCO: MCTs) and �knowledgecentres� (MSSRF) can be expected to have an impact on livelihood assets in the following ways:Human Capital: improved access to education and training through distance learning programmes, and education toolsin a wide range of different formats. The potential to transfer digital content to remote locations easily in the form of text,images, video and radio, combined with the vast storage capacity of PCs, CDs and DVDs, reduces many of the costsassociated with barriers to broad-based information access. The impact of increased information flow on human capitaldevelopment will depend equally on the effective translation of material into different languages and appropriate formatsfor the intended users and their local cultural context.Natural Capital: improved access to institutions dealing with different aspects of natural resource management, includingadministrative and legal information such as land records. Communication channels can be enhanced with appropriateauthorities, landowners, government ministries and local government officials. The experiences of other individuals andcommunities can also be shared and the information used to compare strategies and develop local solutions to problemand conflict situations.Financial Capital: Support and strengthening of local financial institutions, including micro-credit organisations, to improveinformation provision on services and facilities available, such as loans and savings schemes. Extended access to financialinformation can also improve transparency and more equitable service provision such as through highlighting excessiverates of interest charged by moneylenders. Community-based financial management such as savings schemes can alsobe introduced, together with extended communication among a wider community of financial institutions.Social Capital: Improved �networking� both at the community level with existing networks and potentially amongst a muchwider community. The ability to build new social networks at a regional and national level can help to bring benefits toexisting networks and institutions at a local level, such as community based organisations, farmers� organisations etc.The reduction in the cost and time taken to travel to pursue social networking goals can also have a positive impact at ahousehold level with family members spending less time away and less money on transport. Expanded social networksmay also result in increased opportunities for employment both locally and further afield.Physical Capital: Access to markets and market information helps to improve choices for the sale of goods on localmarkets according to enhanced information on prices and comparative supply and demand for products. In the longer-term new markets, techniques and processes for production, processing and marketing of products, both farm and non-farm, can be explored.

7

Better Information for Better Decisions

Information is a basic and fundamentally important elementin any development activity. Finding ways to harness it moreeffectively to assist those making decisions affecting thesustainability, productivity and profitability of their livelihoodsis a priority concern (DFID 2000, 2002). Information aboutfood and agriculture is vital for both individuals and institutionsin developing countries in order for them to make effectivedecisions on issues ranging from household level food securityto local, district and national rural development strategies.Better information and information systems can greatly assistdecision-making at all levels and enable the information thatis available to be used more effectively where it is neededwithin the system. The goal of the FAO’s World AgriculturalInformation Centre (WAICENT) Outreach Programme is:

‘..to enhance the ability of individuals and communities inMember Countries to improve the efficiency, quality, andrelevance of information and knowledge exchange among thevarious stakeholder groups involved in agricultural developmentand food security, with a focus on the most vulnerable anddeprived groups’ (FAO, 2000a: 1).

The effective provision of information on food and agricultureis therefore fundamentally important as it informs both thelivelihood strategies of the rural poor themselves, and thepolicies and strategies of agencies and institutions responsiblefor reducing rural poverty and food insecurity. In each case, itis only through improved information that individuals andinstitutions can make informed choices about the opportunitiesand constraints associated with agricultural developmentstrategies (FAO, 2000b).

In order to prioritise information programme activities andeffectively target different information needs, it is importantto identify different stakeholders (FAO, 2000c). A recentassessment of stakeholder participation in FAO FieldProgrammes, by FAO’s Informal Working Group onParticipatory Approaches and Methods to Support SustainableLivelihoods and Food Security (Warren, 2001), identified morethan 25 different stakeholder types. Primary stakeholdersinclude community and societal actors in projects andprogrammes. Secondary stakeholders include local governanceinstitutions and ‘interface’ institutions such as technical services,NGOs, and private sector organisations. Tertiary stakeholdersinclude national-level development agencies, national NGOs,policy-makers and international support agencies. Evidentlythese various stakeholder groups have highly differentiatedfood and agriculture information needs.

The distinction between stakeholders at the government,decision-making level and more local level stakeholders helpsto illustrate the diversity of information requirements. Furtheranalysis of information needs differentiated by gender alsofollows logically from the people-centred focus of the SL

approach. However, a differentiated approach to informationneeds on the basis of gender should also recognise that mostpeople fall into multiple stakeholder categories according totheir livelihood options and assets. In this regard the policy-makers and farmers discussed below represent comparativelydistinct stakeholder groups, although, needless to say, they referimplicitly to both men and women. Table 1 illustrates some ofthe decisions that are made at each level and the type ofinformation that is needed.

However, improved information is necessary but not sufficientfor improved decision-making. Decision-making is a politicalprocess and stakeholder participation in decision-makingprocesses is crucially important. Enhancing the quality andquantity of information therefore also relies on attention tothe flow of information, such as the means of communication,format and content. Information can potentially have a catalyticrole but must be reliable and relevant to the needs of theparticular user group. Improved information can enable peopleto better defend their interests and articulate their needs; andit increases their bargaining power and ability to influencedecision-making processes which affect them. Transparency isequally important if information is to empower people tomake better decisions. Improved communication systems canenable individuals to organise themselves, use information tohold institutions accountable and put pressure on relevantauthorities to deal with their problems (CTA, 2001). However,identifying appropriate type, quality and quantity ofinformation depends on understanding the capacity ofdecision-makers at different levels to make use of theinformation provided.

3. Better Information for Better Decisions

3.1 Information for farmers,institutions, governments and donors

Filming of a workshop for farmers on weed and soil managementin maize for a broadcast on Ghana national television

Pho

to ©

Joh

n Te

rry/

NR

Inte

rnat

iona

l

8


able to access critical information and communicate’ (1997: 7).Understanding the information needs of these pr imarystakeholders is an essential starting point if higher level policyand planning processes are to effectively support sustainablelivelihoods in rural areas.

Promotion of sustainable rural development strategies,including sound management of natural resources, is a centralconcern of agricultural information systems. Smallholderfarmers in many parts of the world reach productivity levelsthat are only one third of the potential yield under optimumconditions (IFAD, 2001). Principal reasons for low productivityinclude weak (or non-existent) extension services, lack ofcompetitive markets and lack of suppliers for seeds, fertilisersand rural financial services. Together these factors reduce eitherthe possibilities or incentives for increasing agriculturalproductivity. The lack of information available to the ruralpoor is a major constraint to increased agricultural productivity.

Agricultural extension, education and training can help manyfarmers maximise the potential of their productive assets.Farmers need up-to-date information on sources, availabilityand cost of agricultural inputs, and also on the potential ofdifferent techniques and technologies used for the productionand processing of agr icultural goods. Smallholders can

Table 1: Types of decisions and information needs

Decision-making levelRural poorhousehold

Producerorganisations

Local NGO

Local government

Public serviceproviders

Private sectororganisations

National NGOs

Nationalgovernment

InternationalDonor agencies

Decision type

Livelihood strategies(prioritisation of livelihoodactivities & investmentdecisions)

Information required

Availability of agriculturalinputs & services, outputmarket prices, institutional& policy context

Examples*

IPM in Philippines;Farmer Field Schools;Bare foot vets; IIRRworkshops.

Implications for projects

Strengthening extension,education & training systemsto better assist & supportfarmer decisions

Collective strategies(production, processing &marketing)

Local and District policy-making (prioritising resourceallocation)

Information onopportunities &constraints inagricultural sectorInformation aboutexisting livelihoodopportunities &constraintsInformation about thestatus of agriculture &poverty

Rural GroupEnterprises,Mozambique; Marketingorganisations, Mali.Community radioe.g. Kenya; Acacia telecentres;Grameen Shakti.Early Warning Systems.

Capacity building fornetworking & communication

Community-based education& training. Local content.Wireless connectivity

Strengthening local capacityfor information collection &management

Formulating national, district& local technical assistanceprogrammesAssessing market demand foragricultural goods & services

Advocacy work & informedengagement in policy-makingprocessesFormulating targeted nationalpolicies & strategies forAgriculture

Setting priorities for donorassistance programmes

Context specificinformation agriculturalsystems constraintsMarket information &agricultural systemconstraints

Agricultural policiesinstitutions & decision-making processesMonitoring national foodproduction status & trendsin poverty & foodinsecurity

Agricultural LiaisonOfficers; Internet; GISmapping; VERCON.Financial serviceproviders, Mali; Cottonbuyers in Zimbabwe;DELIVERI, Indonesia.IIRR workshops.

National FIVIMSPRSPs

Strengthening capacity forinformation collection &managementEncouraging innovativepartnerships with privatesector

Enhanced stakeholderparticipation in policyprocesses

Improved linkages betweenglobal & national informationsystems

Monitoring global foodproduction & status &trends in poverty &food insecurity

GIEWSVAMFIVIMSPRSPs

Assessment of poverty,productivity & vulnerability;Strengthening linkagesbetween micro & macro leveldecision-making

* Many of these examples are discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

Design of projects to support therural poor

Local level information for rural livelihood activitiesand strategies

Some three quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas and,according to projections, a majority of the poor will continueto live in rural areas well into the 21st century (IFAD, 2001).The rural poor depend primarily on agriculture and relatedactivities for their livelihood; agriculture provides the bulk oftheir income and their main source of nutrition. A complexrange of information is required by rural people andcommunity organisations to pursue individual and collectivelivelihood activities and formulate sustainable livelihoodstrategies.

Richardson (1997) in a report for the FAO stresses the needfor an integrated approach to information for rural andagricultural development. An approach that ‘begins with theneeds of rural people and grassroots agricultural organisationsand works to establish vertical and horizontal channels ofcommunication’ is consistent with a participatory, people-centred, SL approach to information management. Richardsonnotes that ‘participatory development is fully dependent uponcommunication and information sharing processes’ and thatin order to deal with the unprecedented challenges of foodinsecurity and poverty, people at all levels of society ‘must be

9


substantially increase their yields byadopting better methods, seeds andfertilisers whilst delayed adoption of newtechnologies among poor farmers can leadto exclusion from market opportunities.Tripp’s (2001) assessment of futureagricultural technology policies for ruraldevelopment emphasises that most of thenew technologies that will becomeavailable to farmers will be ‘informationintensive’, i.e. requiring increased levelsof knowledge for appropriate management.In addition to basic technical knowledge,the rural poor need to be able to operatein increasingly sophisticated input andoutput markets.

However, it is not sufficient to focus onproduction and crop specific informationalone. The information required by therural poor on agricultural techniquesincludes that relating to forestry, fisheriesand livestock. In addition, information onrural off-farm activities is increasingly important in many areas.In many cases the information that is most relevant toimproving support to livelihoods is wide-ranging informationthat informs diverse household level strategies. Effectiveinformation systems need to integrate the productivity basedneeds of rural communities with information to support broad-based rural development strategies, including diversification ofhousehold activities both within and outside the farm sector.For appropriate choices to be made at the local level,information regarding rural development strategies also needsto incorporate issues of environmental and not just economicsustainability.

Strengthening developing country capacities for research anddevelopment of more responsive extension services is a keyconcern in order to support farmers to make better decisionsrelating to overall household strategy. Extension of agriculturalinformation has evolved beyond merely transmitting messages(although this is still important). It is becoming more open,more participatory and more demand-driven, involvinginteractivity, negotiation and two-way information exchangebetween extension agents and farmers. There is new emphasison the acquisition of information; farmers need to be able torequest information specific to their particular livelihood needsand the options available for building more diversified activities.Information communication systems must therefore bedesigned so as to facilitate dialogue and questioning (Jafri etal., 2002). It is also important to note that the impact ofincreased information flow is dependent on its effectivetranslation into a format and language appropriate to theintended users and their local context, and also on the capacityof farmers to analyse and act on it.

Information about the role and responsibilities of differentinstitutions in the provision of key services is equally important.The rural poor also require better information about ruraldevelopment programmes supposedly designed to benefitthem. Farmers also need to know where to go and who to askfor different types of information. Law, for example, is a crucial

topic for rural people – key questionsconcern inheritance, women’s rights toland and relationships between crop-raisers and herders (Mundy and Sultan,2001). Agricultural credit is anothercrucial topic. Legal and financial disputesare common because rural people donot have access to basic legal andfinancial information. This creates aclimate of distrust, which constrainsinvestment in agriculture.

Longer-term strategies are increasinglygoing to be dependent on informationrelating to international markets, todetermine opportunities and potentialchallenges to sustainable livelihoods.Globalisation and continuing liberalisationof agriculture has substantially changedthe policy and institutional environmentin which poor farmers operate. Previouslythe cost of inputs and output marketprices were fixed and known, but now

smallholders are increasingly exposed to the vagaries of theopen-market. Most poor farmers are ill-equipped to cope,they do not understand how markets work or why pricesfluctuate and are vulnerable to rapid changes in marketconditions. Accessing information on market conditions, pricesand quality of produce from physically remote locations isextremely difficult. Groups of poor farmers are often isolatedfrom each other with little collective organisation, limitedexperience of market negotiation and little understanding ofways in which to influence the terms and conditions underwhich they enter the market.

For example, rural producers commonly sell cheaply duringthe glut immediately following harvest and then buy at higherprices in the lean season, thereby losing out twice. The lack ofinformation means that poor farmers are ultimately passive,rather than active players, in the market and are vulnerable toexploitation by others. As a result they often fail to realise thefull potential value of their produce. Farmer groups orassociations can help overcome this problem. Where ruralproducers are able to communicate better, enabling them toorganise themselves and have access to up-to-date marketinformation, they are able to develop strategies to achieve betterand more stable prices. Improved systems for the managementand communication of agricultural information can help poorfarmers organise as groups, manage production jointly,exchange experiences, obtain technical and economicinformation and make appropriate livelihood choices.

3.2 Strategic importance of information

Information for strategic planning and policy-making

Strategies for information in support of SL-fr iendlypolicy-making focus primarily on enhancing the quality andquantity of information available to institutions responsiblefor making decisions which affect the poor. It is important tonote that information needs at different levels of government

Farmer in Uganda showing her groundnutcrop destroyed by rosette disease

Pho

to ©

Fra

nces

Kim

min

s/N

R In

tern

atio

nal

10


decision-making (local, district, national and international) arehighly differentiated. However two broad types of informationcan be usefully distinguished:• Information on the status of agriculture and poverty as the

basis for policy and regulatory decision-making (includingpopulation, productivity, poverty and vulnerability etc.);

• Information to support management and implementationof policy interventions (monitoring and evaluation, constraintsanalysis, micro-macro links, diagnostic feedback etc.).

Adoption of an SL approach canprovide policy-makers with achanged perspective. The further anSL approach underlies the collectionof information on the status ofagriculture and poverty, the betterthe quality of the informationflowing up to policy-makers.It follows that improvedunderstanding, among policyanalysts and decision-makers, of thediver sity and complexity oflivelihood opportunities facing thepoor is likely to lead to moreappropriate policy choices. SLapproaches to informationcollection and analysis can certainly enrich quantitative andeconomics-based frameworks commonly used in assessing anddesigning policy and programme interventions. In particular,participatory approaches to eliciting more relevant informationin support of decision-making are fundamental to improvedunderstanding of livelihood issues. It is however important tobe pragmatic – Krantz (2001) notes that successful applicationof the approach depends less on, for instance, a particulardefinition of vulnerability, and more on the interpretation ofreality against the principles underlying the approach.

At the government level information needs refer to both thequantity and quality of information that is required bydecision-makers to formulate effective policies. Heeks (1998)(cited in Kenny, Navas-Sabater and Qiang, 2000) prioritisesfour main types of information required for governanceinstitutions:• Information to support internal management, including

staffing and budgeting accounts;• Information to support policy and regulatory decision-making,

including population, economic, financial and other data;• Information made publicly available, including laws, statistics

and health information;• Information to support public services such as education,

health and transport.

It should be further noted that enhancing approaches toinformation collection and analysis is necessary but notsufficient to realise SL objectives. Thomson (2000) argues thatthe best possibility for achieving a sustainable improvementin livelihoods policy is to allow for greater civil society andstakeholder participation in the setting of priorities andformulation of policy. However the extent to which differentstakeholder groups engage in policy debates on food andagricultural issues depends largely on their ability to accessrelevant information.

Governments therefore require improved information on thenature, extent and distribution of food insecurity and poverty,but also, crucially, on the complex linkages between policiesdesigned to solve these problems and actual livelihoodoutcomes. FAO has a number of specialised informationsystems and tools (e.g. Global Information and Early WarningSystem (GIEWS), Emergency Prevention System forTransboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases(EMPRES), GeoWeb), but it is important to examine the ways

in which this information isactually used by policy-makers, aswell as if and how it translates intotargeted policy interventions.

A recent evaluation of FAO’spolicy assistance (FAO, 2001a)shows that it is widely appreciatedby the countries and internationalpartners, and that its technicalquality is as good as, or better than,that of other agencies, makingconsiderable contributions to thepolicy-making processes. Howeversignificant areas for improvementwere found, including theintegration of multi-disciplinary

input. The report also recommends that, in the light of theStrategic Framework, FAO’s policy assistance should beoriented towards rural development policy rather than justagricultural policy.

FAO has been effective in introducing more consultativeapproaches into policy-making between governmentdepartments, but this could be still further strengthened. It isrecommended that FAO continue to encourage participatorymodes of policy formulation that include not only other lineministries, but also NGOs, the private sector, and other UNand bilateral agencies. There is a particular need to increasethe capacity for more rapid flexible responses to theinformation needs of policy-makers. This is partly a questionof improved targeting of government information needs andpartly a question of supporting and training governments ininformation management and analysis for policy-making.

Inter-agency collaboration and coordination ofinformation activities

A particular strength of the SL approach is its emphasis onmulti-level, multi-sectoral collaboration and coordination. Assuch it encourages innovative partnerships betweengovernment departments, public and private sector, civil societyand international development agencies. Enhancinginformation and communication processes within and betweenagencies is a key area of concern. FAO’s role as a neutral forumto discuss and resolve issues related to the management anddissemination of agricultural information gives it considerablecomparative advantage in this area.

The Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information andMapping System (FIVIMS), which is coordinated by FAO,links information systems measuring and monitoring food

FIVIMS website

11


insecurity and vulnerability at the national level, collectivelyreferred to as a ‘national FIVIMS’. A national focal point isusually identified, someone who can play a catalytic and/orcoordinating role, usually located in a Ministry or NGO. TheFIVIMS initiative aims to establish national informationsystems which are required to develop dissemination plansand approaches that ensure that information generated reachesthose who need it, can be easily understood and is actuallyused. A starting point therefore is a user needs assessment toensure that decision-makers’ real information needs arecorrectly identified. National FIVIMS are encouraged toinvolve decision-makers in the preliminary stages of planning.Prepared reports are designed to address the particular interestsof different types of users. Workshops to present and discussresults with subsets of users are also encouraged as an extremelyeffective means of helping decision-makers to interpret andinternalise results, and their implications for policy (FAO, 2000f).

A recent report on the development of national FIVIMS notedthat progress in establishing FIVIMS at country level has beenslow. One of the reasons identified is the problem of supply–demand imbalances. The demand for better, more coordinated,inter-sectoral information and mapping on food security issupposed to come primarily from countries involved in settingtheir own development policy agendas, but in fact demand isoften greater from partner agencies who have greater capacityand resources to allocate to information needs. Differentdevelopment agencies typically invest in gathering anddisseminating information that meets their own specific needs/agendas resulting in frequent duplication of effort andinformation overload, side by side with significant informationgaps. Many developing countries lack the capacity to makeuse of the available information to improve their planningand resource allocation decisions. The great potential ofFIVIMS is that it is a multi-agency programme that can beconducted collaboratively with countries. At present thepotential of substantial existing resources available at countrylevel is not being realised as these resources are being used inan uncoordinated way (FAO, 2001b).

‘The information explosion means there is a continuallyexpanding supply of information [concerning fisheries andaquaculture] but a large part of the most easily availableinformation is local in scope …this body of information isfrequently too large and heterogeneous to be useful to seniormanagers and needs to be monitored, evaluated, consolidatedand shaped into scenarios of plausible future developments.’State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture (FAO, 1996: 1)

The FarmNet concept, developed by FAO, aims to addressthe needs of a range of users from small-scale limited resourcefarmers to semi-commercialfamily farms and producers ofhigh-value export commodities.Participatory informationaudits and needs assessmentsare used to understand thedifferentiated constraints,opportunities, resources andskills of f arm groups.Depending on the results ofthese needs assessments, otheractivities such as ruralnetworking and capacitybuilding can be developed.FAO carried out a study withthe Uganda National Farmers Association to design a FarmNetand farmers indicated the need for information on markets,improved agricultural technologies and weather conditions.Community-based service providers and institutionsparticipating in the FarmNet can now be targeted forappropriate capacity building to strengthen their ability tomanage the appropriate information sources and media thatwill respond to the farmers expressed needs. Differentinstitutions and networks are likely to be appropriate forsupporting the differentiated information needs of the ruralpoor and the programme design should aim to establish holisticinterventions that build information capacity at the multiplelevels.

Livelihood activities/strategies are multiple, diverse anddynamic, involving on-farm as well as off-farm actions, andsince inter-household links and relationships at communityand macro levels are constantly changing as they adjust tonew situations, rural development and food security approachesmust also become more comprehensive, multi-sectoral andflexible (FAO, 2000d). It is important to note that there is asignificant disconnect between on-the-ground efforts to addresslocal information needs and policy-making processes. Thisdisconnect applies to the activities of many developmentagencies and is reflected in the growing separation of FAO’stechnical support operations and its normative activities. Thelocal context has a significant impact on whether generallyaccepted policy reforms are actually adopted and impact atthe local level. Effective policies and processes must begrounded in real life experience, in local circumstances andon real user needs. Both ground level initiatives and policyreform are necessary, but information flow between the twois generally poor and must be improved if the potentialdevelopmental impact of each is to be enhanced.

Box 3: Balancing quality and utility of information

The debate on quality, technical and methodologicalissues such as improving the FIVIMS �undernourished�indicator and integrating information on food security withpoverty data, transparency and accountability alsodepends on human capabilities to make use of theinformation (FAO, 2000f). As with all information, there isa necessary trade-off between the level of technical detailinvolved in information collection and analysis, and thepractical usefulness of that information. Standardisationof techniques of information collection, storage andpresentation is important, both to improve efficiency ininformation handling within agencies and also to ensurethat information can be used externally by other agencies,thereby facilitating greater cross-sectoral communicationand coordination. This is a key part of FAO/WAICENT�snormative role in information management. However, thisrequires changes in management and organisationalprocesses and skills, as well as in the tools and techniquesof information handling. Attention to both the social andtechnical processes of �informatisation� is thereforeimportant.

12


There is limited access to formal information systems in manyrural communities, but systems and processes for informationexchange do exist. Governments and service providers usingthe traditional ‘top-down’ approach to information deliveryprovide information that is often generated in an externalenvironment to that of the end user. In this context informationcan be, or appear to be, irrelevant to user groups whoseinformation systems cannot easily assimilate the external databeing provided. New initiatives should aim to build on thestrengths of existing systems of information exchange. Thepotential for enhancing these systems depends on identifyingthe most appropriate institutions to work with and also theirconstraints.

Institutions

Institutions from government departments and extensionservices, to non-governmental organisations, farmers’organisations and women groups all rely on information toperform their basic functions of coordination and managementof member activities. This has been true for institutionsthroughout history. Today, new institutions are being formedin the context of a global information society that reliesincreasingly on electronic networks and digital informationto function. Those institutions that remain somehowunconnected to these new networks are being described asinformation poor. The UN Centre for Science and Technology(in Zijp, 1994) for example, states that:

‘The distinction between theinformation “haves” and “have-nots”is the basis for the dichotomies betweendeveloped and developing, rich andpoor…It is within this context that theconcept of development might beunderstood in “information term”.’

An inherent assumption in thisperspective is that information beinggenerated by and circulated withinglobal networks has the capacity tomake southern institutions richer, not just in terms ofinformation. For this to be true the information systems fromwhich these institutions are being excluded need to be ableto provide information that is relevant to their local social,economic and political context. A further assumption of thisperspective is that the ‘have-nots’ are ‘have-nothings’ and donot have existing information systems of any substance. Thisexemplifies the overly optimistic ‘technologically deterministic’approach that is prevalent in the digital divide debate and canlead to unwarranted conclusions that require the replacementof existing networks with new ‘modern’ systems that aresuperimposed on the diverse, local systems (Heeks, 1999).

CAB International (CABI) manages a wide range ofinformation resources of existing agricultural information,through publications, CD ROMs and research studies.A recent example of building on collective experiences andpartnership between institutions is the development of theCrop Protection Compendium which provides a CD ROMor Internet based database of information on 200 crops and150 countries, including images and descriptions of over 1,800pests, diseases and weeds. The compendium has been sponsoredby over 40 organisations including development agencies,private sector and NGOs ranging from Monsanto to theRockefeller Foundation. It also collaborated with internationalorganisations such as the FAO and many research institutions,universities and specialists have contributed. The compendiumrepresents an example of a collective effort to provide theappropriate institutional support for funding, research andmanagement that was required to develop an informationresource on this scale.

As previously stated, FAO has developed a number of specialisedinformation systems for the supply of information needs on allaspects of agricultural development and food security, and theseare coordinated under the framework of the World AgriculturalInformation Centre (WAICENT). The systems arepredominantly global in geographic scope, focusing on foodand agriculture, plant and animal diseases and agriculturalgenetic resources. Notable examples include: GIEWS (GlobalInformation and Early Warning System), EMPRES

(Emergency Prevention System forTransboundary Animal and Plant Pestsand Diseases), and ARTEMIS (AfricaReal Time Environmental MonitoringInformation System). Each of theseprovide policy-makers throughout theworld with the most up-to-dateinformation available on variousaspects of agricultural developmentand food secur ity. These globalinformation systems are extremelyvaluable for providing a global picture,and for the purposes of inter-countryand inter-continental comparisons, but

are of limited value for sub-national policy-making andplanning. The development and capacity of national levelinformation systems varies considerably in developingcountries.

FAO is also developing a number of generic informationmanagement methodologies and tools within the WAICENTframework, which can be offered to its member countries forcustomisation to suit local needs in management and analysisof information. Some, such as the Key Indicators MappingSystem (KIMS), are relatively mature, while others are in theearly stages of development and testing. In addition, developing

4. Existing Information Systems for Rural Livelihoods

4.1 Importance of existing systems

EMPRES website

13

Existing Information Systems for Rural Livelihoods

and promoting the use of international and open standardsand norms for content management and information exchangeis a central part of FAO’s normative role.

As part of recent changes in priorities within FAO, a grouphas been established to develop a programme of capacitybuilding and outreach to strengthen the capacity of Membercountries to manage and exchange information and knowledgeabout agricultural development and food security. A notableexample of FAO’s shifting focus from global informationsystems to national information systems is the establishmentof national FIVIMS. FIVIMS aims to support and strengthennational information systems. However, development ofnational FIVIMS has been slow and varies according to thecapacity of existing information systems and networks.Initiatives such as FIVIMS emphasise the importance ofbuilding on and strengthening existing sectoral informationsystems. It is important to note that formal sectoral informationsystems could themselves benefit greatly from building onexisting capacities of extensive informal knowledge networks.This is also likely to result in greater institutional sustainability.

Existing informal systems and networks for communicationused by many institutions in developing countries are capableof transfer r ing location specific information to ruralpopulations and should therefore be integrated into formalinformation networks through the processes andmethodologies used to design learning and extension initiatives.The relationship between the institutional source and the usergroup has been located within the context of three knowledgesystems, namely endogenous sources from within the widergroup, indigenous (or local) sources from within the immediatecommunity, or exogenous from outside the local community(Carter, 1999). A study of grassroots farmers in Uganda andGhana compared the use of information from the three sourcesby farmers in the two countries. The level of use of endogenousinformation was similar but far more exogenous informationwas used in Ghana (46% compared to 31%) and far less localinformation (12% compared to 22%). This relates not only tothe availability of the information but also to the reliability ofthe information sources. Examples of exogenous sourcesinclude radio, extension agents and NGOs, and the study foundthat trust in those sources correlated very closely to the usepatterns. The greatest trust in both countries was in endogenoussources such as experience and observation, with trust inexogenous sources such as extension agents and radio beingslightly higher in Ghana (Carter, 1999).

One approach to making information more acceptable locallyis to use vernacular languages and local actors to perform radioplays that are followed by a panel discussion of the issues raised(Chapman et al., 2003). The importance of building on agroup’s assets and institutional relationships to supportinformation infrastructure is emphasised through the SLapproach. The use of existing networks should therefore beencouraged, although Starkey (1997) warns that somecentralised networks with top-down planning are not truenetworks based on active participation and interaction ofautonomous members. Information may also be deceptivewhere dominance and power are the principle preoccupationsof the institutions involved. Networks should be identifiedthat are effective at empowering local institutions and notsimply functioning to perpetuate the existing power structure(Chambers, 1994).

Processes and methodologies

The desire to superimpose new ‘technologically advanced’information systems on those that exist in developing countriesis reminiscent of the top-down approach to agriculturalextension. Changes to this concept of extension have beenwidely recommended (Neuchâtel, 1999; Chistoplos et al., 2001,2002; Roling, 1995; Rivera, 2001; Berdegué and Escobar, 2001).

Box 4: Integrating informal knowledge networksinto formal information systems

The National Innovation Foundation (NIF) was set up withthe support of the Department of Science and Technology,Government of India, to provide institutional support tograssroots innovators and develop national strategies forcoordinated research, design and development to promotelearning from indigenous knowledge. A specific objectiveof the NIF is to �build linkages between excellence in formalscientific systems and informal knowledge systems andcreate a Knowledge Network to link stakeholders throughthe use of information technologies and otherwise�.

The Honey Bee Network is one such knowledge network,created by the Society for Research and Initiatives forSustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI), thatcollects examples of contemporary innovations andoutstanding examples of the use of traditional localknowledge in the sustainable management of naturalresources. Local innovators benefit from appraisal froman advisory committee of Science and Technology expertsand expert grassroots innovators from informal sectors.10,000 examples have been collected so far anddisseminated within local communities in India in six locallanguages and amongst a wider community across 75countries in English and Spanish. Patents and fundingare also sought on behalf of innovators to help promoteprivate sector development and safeguard intellectualproperty rights. The Honey Bee Network is based on theobservation that �innovations in technological, cultural orinstitutional subsets often remain isolated andunconnected despite an otherwise reasonably robustinformal knowledge network in existence. An extensiveknowledge network that connects innovation andenterprise in an institutional context is what appears tobe the most viable approach for sustainable development.�

(National Innovation Foundationhttp://www.nifindia.org/)

Radio station in Tanzania

Pho

to ©

Chr

is S

attlb

erge

r/Pan

os P

ictu

res

14


One approach that is recommended is the use of anAgricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) asan institutional framework that can be used in both verticaland horizontal technology transfer. The AKIS has been adoptedby the FAO and the World Bank. Agricultural Knowledgeand Information Systems for Rural Development (AKIS/RD)aims to establish the institutional framework and dynamicprocesses of information integration and exchange that arenecessary to promote agricultural development.

Agricultural researchers, extension providers and educatorsform the knowledge triangle within which farmers are locatedand interact in a two-way information flow process with eachof the three institutions (FAO/World Bank, 2000).

The extent to which learning and feedback from farmers isintegrated into the AKIS framework depends on theunderlying conceptual model that determines the process bywhich extension is carried out in practice. Roling (1995)outlines three alternative models of extension practice, thefirst being the linear model of technology transfer, which is thepervasive top-down approach that works to reinforceestablished institutional hierarchies. The other two models aremore holistic and allow attention to be focused at the level ofthe farmer rather than the research station. Advisory work stemsfrom a bottom-up approach that relies on innovative andenquiring farmers who seek advice from external sources.Farmers’ needs are therefore the starting point for advice andinformation is required to support the farmers existingknowledge rather than to challenge it. This process relies onthe sharing of information between a broad array of extensionworkers to enable the farmers’ requests to be answered. Theindividual extension workers are unlikely to be experts onevery issue but they should have a broad knowledge and besupported by a network of specialists. The key role of theextension worker in the process of advisory work is to improvethe farmer’s problem solving ability. The process of facilitation,such as used by the Farmer Field School, also centres on thefarmers own learning ability and encourages a reliance onobservation based decision-making, especially in the contextof low external input agricultural development. Farmersthemselves become the decision-makers in this process throughparticipation and improved networking. This corresponds withthe SL approach to development that places ownership of thelearning process with the stakeholder as the decision-maker.The role of information in the processes of advisory workand facilitation is to support the needs of farmers in decision-making and problem solving to improve their livelihoods.

The capacity of agricultural research and extension to provideknowledge for development as demonstrated by the GreenRevolution perpetuates the demand for publicly fundedagricultural research to generate knowledge as a public good(World Bank, 1999). However, the combination of a reductionin public research budgets, a globalising market and theinformation explosion has contributed to a more complexknowledge landscape. The role of international developmentinstitutions is increasingly to act as intermediaries in the transferof knowledge and to manage knowledge as an internationalor global public good (World Bank, 1999). This role isparticularly important in the context of ‘levelling the field’between the knowledge and information available to poorrural farmers and non-poor commercial farmers, and fordeveloping countries with limited public sector informationmanagement capabilities (Berdegué and Escobar, 2001).

4.2 Information costs

Underlying FAO’s mandate is the assumption that informationfor agricultural and rural development is a global public goodand therefore should be made available to all. The concept ofa public good is that the benefits are non-rival in consumptionand non-excludable. This characteristic of non-excludabilitymeans that public goods are less likely to be provided byindividuals or by normal market mechanisms and are thereforecommonly under-supplied, especially where the costs ofprovision are high. In cases of under-provision, it is the poorestand least powerful groups who generally suffer most as they

Box 5: Digital divides

The �digital divide� debate is founded on numerousstatistics comparing the telecommunications andinformation technology infrastructure between thedeveloped and developing regions of the world. Theinfrastructure context in which these processes mustoperate can be shown by regional comparisons. Forexample, North America and Europe account for 89% ofall Internet hosts and Africa only 0.25%. This can help toillustrate not only the divide but also the rate at which it iswidening � such as the difference between the number ofInternet hosts per thousand inhabitants in Africa (0.17)and North America (46.28) was a multiple of 267 in October1997 but this had grown to 540 (0.31 and 166.68respectively) in October 2001. However, these figures canmask huge disparities within regions between countries.In the Africa region North Africa and South Africa are hometo 1.2 of a total of 1.7 million dial-up Internet subscriberson the continent (in mid 2002) which means there areonly 500,000 in the remaining 49 countries (Jensen, 2003).It is perhaps more useful to focus on the opportunities forharnessing the potential of the new technology to leapfrogcostly infrastructure investments, for example in fixedlines, and work towards the wireless and digital networksthat promise wider reach and cheaper data transfer.Liberalisation of telecommunications services has beenthe key to both the growth of access to lines and thereduction in prices in many countries (OECD, 2001). Thereare also often considerable disparities within countries atthe sub-national and district levels, for example in the caseof Uganda the particular growth of mobile telephoneaccess is concentrated around the Kampala area andmore than half of the sub-counties in the country do nothave a telephone service.

Figure 3: The Knowledge Triangle of an AKIS/RD

farmers

research extension

education

15


been argued that they should be sold in order to generaterevenue and also as a means of deriving feedback as to theactual value of the product.

Differential strategies are required that take account of thelinkages between the household level asset-vulnerabilitycontext, and institutional relations and decision-makingprocesses governing production, exchange and accumulation.Three types of strategies have been descr ibed for thedevelopment of Agricultural Knowledge and InformationSystems that focus more explicitly on the direct and indirectlinks to poverty reduction. The first is termed ‘market-drivenAKIS’ which focuses on identifying and building onopportunities for further development of profitable commercialfarming. This strategy does not set out to provide informationand services that benefit poor farmers directly, but developsthe agricultural sector in order to reduce the cost of food forthe urban poor and rural net food purchasers. There are alsolikely to be increased rural employment opportunities in thefarm sector and the rural non-farm economy. The developmentof this type of AKIS could still benefit from public sectorinvestment but this would need to be in creating the enablingenvironment in terms of policies and institutional frameworksrather than direct service provision.

Second, a ‘market-oriented, asset-constrained AKIS’ could haveboth direct and indirect impact on poor farmers. This strategyis appropriate when the farmers’ assets are constrained in someway but opportunities exist to improve agricultural productionand incomes. Direct poverty reduction can be achieved throughthe provision of services for small-scale farmers and attentionto improving income generation through market-orientedinnovations. Indirect impacts on livelihoods will also bedeveloped through the opening of linkages between farm andnon-farm activities. Public sector investment and activities arerequired to promote market-oriented agricultural and ruraldevelopment, but the market cannot be expected to work onits own given pre-existing asset constraints. Third, a ‘contextand asset constrained AKIS’ represents the strategy for areaswhere agricultural innovation can only have a very limiteddirect poverty reducing impact on rural livelihoods. The publicsector will be required to provide information and servicesfor subsistence farmers to ensure household food security andfor a diversified portfolio of activities to achieve ruraldevelopment and sustainable livelihoods in the longer term.This type of situation requires a strategy that supports localinstitutions and creates links to external networks.

are least able to pay to access such public goods. The marginalvalue of public goods, at least in terms of utility, is thereforeoften greatest for the poor, hence the argument for usingdevelopment assistance to correct under-supply. In this contextthe provision of ICTs could also be considered appropriatefor public sector investment where the flexible characteristicsof existing technologies can be adapted to support rurallivelihoods. Public funded research could assist in identifyingthose technologies currently available that have the mostimmediate practical applications for the rural poor. However,the benefits flowing from the provision of such technologyand information vary according to the ability of differentgroups to make use of it. The relative value of agriculturalinformation is largely context specific. Sustainability concernshave led to a shift towards more demand responsive approachesand better targeting of information needs.

Determine who should pay

Income generation is essential for financial sustainability andcould help to facilitate knowledge sharing, e.g. through groupor communal payments for the use of facilities, informationoutput and through general membership or subscriptionpayments. Other factors that contribute to longer-termsustainability are local ownership and the development ofservices that respond to local demands, including training.

Information cost is a key issue. In the light of a continuingdecline in the absolute value of aid to agriculture, projectsand programmes have come under increasing financial pressure.Subsequent debates in agricultural extension have led to a re-evaluation of the roles of public and private sector in serviceprovision (Hoffmann et al., 2000; Chapman and Tripp, 2003).However experiences in reforming agricultural extensionservices vary substantially between countries and the questionof who can reasonably be expected to pay (and how much)for these services remains largely unresolved. Quantifying‘demand’ for information from poor farmers who are unableto pay is problematic. In the livelihoods context, many of thebasic information needs for livelihood support may correspondwith an inability to pay, which renders economic argumentsabout willingness to pay and price irrelevant.

Successful information and communication initiatives oftenrepresent large sunk costs. For example, establishing anagricultural radio programme series or agricultural researchbulletin requires investing a significant amount of time, effortand skills. However once such initiatives are established andthe basic physical and organisational infrastructure is in place,the technologies and media are extremely versatile and canbe used to do all kinds of things. Recent success stories includethe use of mobile phones in Uganda and Bangladesh, andfixed-line telecentres in Senegal.

Elsewhere rural newspapers can cover a significant proportionof their costs from sales and advertising. The same is true ofrural radio where advertising, sponsorship, and payments forbasic services, such as announcements, can provide revenue(CTA, 2001). To-date, advertising is less common ingovernment publications and information services. Extensionbulletins for example are normally distributed free but it has

Africa online Telecentre

Pho

to ©

Rob

ert C

hapm

an

16


Local level innovation needs to be supported through farmer-to-farmer extension systems, on-farm-adaptive research andparticipatory technology development (Berdegué and Escobar,2002).

The private sector and demand-driven information servicescannot be expected to operate effectively in all these varioussituations of asset and context vulnerability. The debate onpublic and private provision of extension services could beconsidered to be more of an issue about accountability andorganisational management than the funding alone. Katz (2002)identifies four emerging paradigms and approaches in this area:• Privatisation and the withdrawal of the state: based on the

belief that extension services essentially provide privategoods and that private extension services are more effective;

• Financial participation of farmers: This is intended to reducethe cost to the state, make services more demand-drivenand promote a sense of ownership;

• More effective use of public funds: Assuming public fundingis justified for the provision of useful extension services,something has to be done to offset costs and generateincome where possible, otherwise the funding will not beable to cover the perceived need;

• Ownership and accountability through producers’ ownextension services: gives greater control to the users andrelies more on management through local level organisations.

Despite ongoing debates on the funding of existing agriculturalinformation systems, new information and communicationtechnologies are expected by many to ease the task of providinginformation services for rural livelihoods. DFID(2002: 13)anticipate that, ‘agr icultural extension agents can moreeffectively access and share local and global knowledge oncrops, pest management, irrigation and other aspects of small-scale agriculture relevant to the needs of the poorest.’ Thecost to donors of facilitating the use of ICTs by theirbeneficiaries should not be considered from a sectoralperspective alone. For donors operating with a livelihoods andpoverty focus, funding for ICTs should be mainstreamed intopolicies and programmes, especially when considering theirrole in addressing the International Development Goals (IDGs)(DFID, 2002). More broadly for governments and NGOs,information and communication components should not beseen simply as an additional cost, added on to developmentprojects as an afterthought. They are an integral part of thedevelopment process and are directly related to the use andtransfer of information within a project. Therefore, there shouldbe less focus on whether information systems are financiallysustainable in the short term and more on how developmentinitiatives can achieve longer term sustainability by payinggreater attention to their information and communicationcomponents (Ernberg, 1998).

Political and social sustainability

It has been established that participation is centrally importantto the SL approach. However, Warren (2001) identifies 13different types of costs associated with the participatory process.These include direct costs (economic or financial), as well asopportunity costs (economic or financial value of lostopportunities), and intangible costs (losses of a psychological,

social or political nature). Firstly, participatory informationand communication projects require a greater number of well-qualified staff than conventional projects which obviouslyentails increased costs. Opportunity costs include the timeinvested by participants and any unpaid labour provided tosupport implementation, e.g. provision of information orsharing experiences. Perhaps most significant are social costs,such as the loss of social privilege or status, relating to changespromoted by the participatory process, e.g. women’sempowerment leading to a decline in the primacy of men.Related to this are political costs, such as the loss of authorityor leadership, caused by increased transparency andaccountability associated with participation. Some of these‘costs’ are a necessary part of processes of democratisation;others may be unintended, such as the exposure of villageaffairs to external groups, leading to a loss of local autonomyand market share. These are key considerations in the planningand implementation of effective and sustainable informationand communication initiatives. It is important to identify earlyon areas of potential conflict and resistance to participatoryprocesses.

Sustainability is a key issue emerging from the telecentreliterature (Gomez et al., 1999; McConnell et al., 2001).Financial issues are just one of a number of identifiedcomponents of sustainability, ranging from technical andorganisational to cultural and political. These have importantimplications for the effective design, planning andimplementation of telecentres. Many of the issues identifiedalso apply to other information and communication activities.

The issues include:1. Technical issues – basic infrastructural requirements and

systems development (telephones, electricity, telecomsservice providers), also availability and responsiveness oftechnical support and expertise.

2. Institutional issues – locating a telecentre within the existinginstitutional framework and building on existing knowledgenetworks (formal and informal) i.e. in partnership with localgovernment schools, libraries, universities, etc., and civilsociety organisations.

3. Economic issues – income generation, cost recovery, abilityto pay, participatory market demand assessments to identifyoptimal location of information services.

4. Social and cultural issues – information content and formatappropriate to the context of users, capacity of managers/operators of information services to identify and supplythe information needs of users and human capacity (literacy,numeracy) of beneficiaries to make use of information.

5. Political issues – participation in planning andimplementation, political networks, local power relationsand access, discrimination and exclusion.

(based on McConnell et al., 2001)

There are many factors influencing sustainability, andinformation and communication initiatives must take accountof, and satisfy, the needs of intended users, otherwise theservices will remain under-utilised and will be unsustainablein the long-term. The specific types of information andcommunication activities undertaken and the technologies andtechniques applied must be context specific and focus uponaims and objectives based on clearly defined goals.

17


communication strategies, but the opportunities to improveaccess, empowerment and democratisation are increasing withtechnological advances in communications (Skuse, 2000). Thechallenge is to harness these opportunities to enable ruralcommunities and developing country governments to manageinformation more effectively and build strategies that canpromote the transfer of information that is more relevant topeople’s livelihood needs.

Access and empowerment

There are a number of distinctions between different types ofinformation that are more or less publicly or freely available.In many developing countries the demands for greater accessrefer primarily to the publicly available information that (dueto a lack of infrastructure) is not communicated to the majorityof those living in remote rural areas. Public information suchas market prices should be accessible (in order for the marketto be open and efficient) and freely available throughout theyear, so that decisions on the purchase of inputs, credit,equipment and labour can be made on the same terms asother farmers. The distinction made by the World Bank andFAO, between the high and low excludability of informationin an Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS/RD) shows that certain types of information can be moreeasily restricted from ‘public’ use, usually through a system oftariffs or charges for its essentially ‘private’ use. The extent towhich the value of certain information is diminished by sharingit with others can also be described as its subtractability, suchthat the most freely available ‘public good’ information hasboth low subtractability and low excludability (FAO/WorldBank, 2000). Information that supports livelihoods is likely toconsist of both public and private information and, dependingon the degree of local competition, varying degrees ofsubtractability will apply. The problem of information beingavailable but unaffordable (high excludability) is relevant tosome of the private sector extension services that commercialfarmers networks are able to enjoy, but for the most part thereis far more ‘public information’ that is freely available in thedeveloped world that developing country farmers are excludedfrom, simply because of accessibility problems and not inherentcharacteristics that make the information exclusive.

There are numerous organisations, from FAO to local NGOs,that are trying to improve the dissemination of informationrelevant to rural livelihoods in developing countries. Manynew initiatives seek to harness the potential oftelecommunications, digital information networks, computerdatabases and multimedia tools to improve both the qualityand quantity of information that can be accessed locally. ThePan Asia Networking programme aims to improve informationnetworking in Asia through the use of ICTs and thedevelopment and sharing of information resources. Thisinitiative promotes knowledge sharing, research collaborationand information exchange, and helps to develop appropriateInternet policies, technologies and systems through appliedresearch. A pilot project in the Philippines, in barangays(townships) in Mindanao, uses a range of approaches basedaround multipurpose community telecentres (MCTs) fromInternet access and telephone access, to a computer processingcentre and training resource centre. The focus is also on

Michiels and Van Crowder (2001), in a review of community-based ICT initiatives, stress the need for improved monitoringand evaluation, and participatory impact assessment, especiallywith regard to impact on the economic and social livelihoodsof communities which remains poorly understood. Evaluationof such initiatives is found to be generally weak. The reportnotes that participatory needs assessments are rarely performedprior to ICT applications and the emphasis tends to be moreoften on providing access than on innovative ways of applyingICTs to the specific information needs of communities andlocal groups. Gomez et al. (1999) stress the difficulties ofmeasuring the impact of information on development andthe lack of appropriate indicators. There is a growing literatureon how to assess the impact of information and communicationinitiatives (Menou, 1999). However, ‘until relevantmethodologies and adequate tools are developed to effectivelyassess the social impact of the application of ICTs for sustainabledevelopment from the user’s perspective, efforts to demonstratehow people are empowered by knowledge will lack credibility’(Gomez et al., 1999: 1).

‘Impact Assessment for Information System Development’ wasthe subject of one of three workshops at the FAO’s firstConsultation on Agricultural Information Management(COAIM) (June 2000) where it was noted that the full valueof information activities is not always appreciated. Informationis often seen as a subject for librarians or computer technicians,rather than as an integral part of every agricultural programme.As a result most information programmes are not systematicallymonitored, evaluated, or assessed and public sectororganisations in particular tend to place insufficient emphasison the measurement of information programme results. It wasrecommended that FAO, CTA, and other organisations,develop and promote impact assessment for agriculturalinformation programmes and projects with the aim of ensuringthat Impact Assessment (IA) becomes an integral part of theplanning and implementation cycle.

The following mechanisms should have priority:• Sensitisation of policy- and decision-makers;• Development of a cadre of individuals trained in the

processes and procedures of IA;• Establishment of guidelines and standards for IA;• Exchange of IA experiences between individuals and

organisations.(FAO, 2000e)

4.3 Access, empowerment anddemocratisation

The technological capacity to transfer information andcommunicate across large distances has increased rapidly inrecent years. With this increased technological capacity comesa responsibility to provide equal access to information(Arunachalam,1999). The benefits of the technology could beapplied democratically to empower individuals withinformation that is relevant to their livelihoods, rather than toperpetuate existing social, economic and political disparitiesbetween the information ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ Disparities ininformation transfer exist for a number of reasons fromgovernment resource limitations, to inefficient or unequal

18


providing useful information on a range of subjects of relevanceto the communities, ranging from health and education torural enterprise development and agriculture. The MCTrepresents a partnership of support between government,private sector, community and academics that aims to empowerthe villagers themselves to develop their knowledge-sharingcapabilities. The PAN Asia initiative has a networking focusand connects institutions such as universities and educationand research centres on a regional basis. Partners have beenidentified in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Indonesia,Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam and are supportedto improve networking capacity at the national level in thefirst instance. Tibet University is also receiving support to helplocal institutions such as the Tibet Academy of Agriculturaland Animal Sciences and the Tibet Agricultural and AnimalHusbandry College. Farmers are also targeted as the intendedbeneficiaries of the Farmknow website established by theChina Agricultural University, to allow farmers such as thosearound Beijing to diagnose problems with their vegetable cropfrom a database of over 70 locally occurring agricultural diseasesand 30 insect pests. Farming specialists are available to provideassistance and respond to questions sent via e-mail.

The Acacia initiative in Africa builds on the existing partnershipof Afr ican governments and donors under the Afr icanInformation Society Initiative (AISI). The initiative aims toincrease community access to information and communicationand to develop, through its research, models for sustainablesolutions that can improve information shar ing andcommunication. The disparities between Africa and otherregions’ communication infrastructure, and within thecontinent itself, illustrate the long-term support that is needed.The Acacia initiative takes a 25 year perspective and aims todemonstrate particularly how disadvantaged groups andcommunities can be empowered to solve local developmentproblems through the use of information and communication.The programme strategy therefore is not simply to provideaccess through IDRC support, but to integrate nationalinformation services with community needs. The provisionof innovative technical infrastructure and equipment representsone practical aspect of the programme, but equally important,although perhaps less visible, aspects involve the formulationof policy advice to reduce rural–urban disparities in serviceprovision, human capacity building, extending existing

communication networks and improving public informationdelivery. The programme was established in 1997 following aplanning phase and initially focuses on the countries ofMozambique, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda and will becontinually assessed through the Evaluation and LearningSystem of Acacia (ELSA). The pilot phase involves thedevelopment of telecentres (MCTs), many in partnership withUNESCO and the International Telecommunications Union(ITU), as well as national governments. Further partnershipswith the private sector (such as Nortel) are being encouraged,both to support the programme generally and to expand thetelecentre network.

There appear to be few international organisations that aredoing more than the IDRC to tackle the problem ofcommunity access head-on and although it is difficult toevaluate the extent to which communities and individualshave been empowered by the early stages of the programme,the participatory and partnerships based approach is likely toencourage further international efforts in the future. There isa growing need to identify existing national programmes andinitiatives that can be supported and use the lessons learnedfrom international experience to develop effective nationalstrategies. One approach to improving lesson learning at thenational level is to build networking capacity to promoteknowledge sharing and partnerships. IFAD has formed anumber of partnerships, such as with IDRC, to improveknowledge sharing between organisations and their projectactivities. The Electronic Networking for Rural Asia/ Pacific(ENRAP) aims to improve the use of the Internet by partners’development projects for improved communication andinformation sharing and also to develop more local levelnetworking. The strategic focus for ENRAP to build theknowledge management capacity of its projects and promoteknowledge sharing between them led to the identificationduring the project of a further need to use knowledge moreeffectively within projects. This requires a shift in emphasisfrom knowledge management to knowledge for empowermentthat is necessary to enable the long term sustainability ofknowledge management beyond the life of the project.Communities are empowered when they become more ableto take control of their knowledge environment and theconventional paradigm of knowledge management on its own

Box 6: InfoDev

One initiative that is aimed at assisting developing countrygovernments to improve their information systems is theInformation for Development Programme (infoDev, http://www.infodev.org) managed by the World Bank. Theprogramme aims to support key decision-makers at thenational level, based on international experience of bestpractice in terms of policy and technical advice. Theprogramme focuses on the following activities:� Consensus Building� Information Infrastructure Development Strategies

including Knowledge Assessments� Telecommunications Reform and Market access� Demonstration Projects

The activities can be centred on one or more sectors andthe objective is to develop and promote workableinformation strategies in participating countries.

Farmknow website

19


areas of the World and reduce the cost of access for poorcommunities. However, the need to decentralise informationnetworks to make them more locally relevant remains, andintegrating old and new media is likely to be important duringthe transition phases. Rural and community radio initiativessuch as those promoted by the FAO and other UN agencies(e.g. UNESCO and UNICEF) enable the target audience tobe more clearly defined and more importantly for communityparticipation in the development of programmes to be‘broadcast’ or ‘narrowcast’. The process of participation itselfand ownership of programme content can be empoweringfor many communities, but it is the opportunity to interactthat is likely to lead to the provision of the most relevantinformation at the local level as people learn to ask questionsthat relate directly to their livelihoods needs. The potentialfor interactive community radio to answer questions andrespond to identified needs can be greatly enhanced by linkinglocal radio stations to the Internet. The FAO has beenpioneering work in this area in West Africa and initiativesunder the Global Knowledge Partnership, such as the Kothmaleradio station in Sri Lanka, have received wide acclaim. In allcases the emphasis should not be on the type, specification orcost of the technology being used, but whether livelihoodsfocused information needs are being addressed and whetherbroad based and equal access to information is being provided.

Democratisation

There is considerable debate over the role that developmentplays in the promotion of democracy. The challenge to thecurrent political hegemony ranges from analyses that highlightthe present (but not necessarily inherent) incompatibilitiesbetween capitalist economic development and democracy(Koch, 1998), to a view of global power relations that equatesinternational development with a form of neo-colonialismthat uses ‘low intensity democracy’ as a cynical tool to achieveits goals (Escobar, 1995; Gills and Rocamora, 1992). Thesedebates are raging and cannot be ignored, but it is not theplace to discuss them further here. Suffice to say thatinformation is integral to governance within any politicalsystem, be it democratic or autocratic, and power is vestedmainly in those most able to control knowledge for theirbenefit.

Information that flows between groups, that can be accessedand used by any group for its own purposes, is likely to bedemocratising. The information does not necessarily have tobe freely available, but the terms of access must be equitable,which means that those that are unable to pay for informationhave to be allowed access by other means. Many internationaljournals provide differential subscription rates in an attemptto provide more equitable access, charging Southerninstitutions less than their Northern counterparts. In thecontext of rural development, the remote nature of manycommunities and the scale of agro-ecological diversity makesit difficult for government institutions such as the NationalAgr icultural Research Systems (NARS) to provideinformation that is relevant to all farmers’ needs. This problemis often exacerbated by the tendency of agricultural researchto focus on technologies and solutions for the commercialfarming sector. This is not only inequitable in terms of the

has a tendency to increase, rather than decrease, dependency.Knowledge for empowerment therefore aims to recognise thelocal power structures that influence local knowledgemanagement disparities and target the groups that are mostmarginalised. The empowerment of any group centres on itscapacity to generate and use knowledge, and to share it on anequal basis with other groups (Siochru, 2001).

Information is useful only if it is available, if the users haveaccess to it, in the appropriate form and language – i.e., if it iscommunicated, if it circulates among the various users withappropriate facilities, if it is exchanged (Mundy and Sultan,2001: 1).

Local NGOs and national research centres; such as thecelebrated M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF)and Simputer initiatives in India, are also experimenting withinnovative technological solutions to the problem of increasingopportunities for rural communities to access informationrelevant to their livelihoods. Swaminathan’s e-villages aremanaged at the community level to respond to the informationneeds of particular user groups, such as the wave height andweather forecast information for the fishermen in the villageof Veerampattinam. The ‘demand-driven’ and location specificinformation centres are run mainly by semi-literate womenand students, and a specific objective of the MSSRF initiativeis to empower them through their role as information managersand providers (see http://www.mssrf.org/). In Bangladesh,many women have been similarly empowered through theirrole as private telephone operators. Grameen phone hasestablished a rural mobile telephone network in Bangladeshand women are targeted in the villages to operate thetelephones so that they can earn extra income for their familiesby renting them out to others in the village who wish tomake calls. The deliberate targeting of women, such as in thecase of the information managers in MSSRF’s e-villages inIndia, aims to address the unequal power relations that existbetween men and women in these communities. By includingmarginalised groups in the processes of knowledge sharingand helping to define their role, it is possible to erode theexisting hierarchies and promote development goals that arebased on more broad based and bottom-up knowledgestrategies.

Mass media such as television and radio still have the potentialto provide access to a wide audience through their‘broadcasting’ networks. In Africa, radio has the opportunityto disseminate information to a wider audience than othermedia, and this is set to increase with digital and satellitecommunications. The number of radios has been increasingrapidly over the past 40 years and it was estimated that therewere over 120 million in 1995, with over 45 million televisionsets. Television use in Africa has not grown at the same rate asother developing countries, such as India where deregulatedsatellite television has enabled cheap access to a wide range ofcable television services (Mytton, 2000). However, whencompared to 700,000 Internet connections, of which 600,000are in South Africa, the traditional media continue to have aconsiderable head start when it comes to ‘universal access’ toinformation. Innovations such as the wind-up radio (see Box7) and World Space digital radio receivers are also helping toextend the frontiers of communication to many remote rural

20


information that is being generated, but it also ignores theneeds of smaller-scale farmers for information on which tobase their livelihood decision-making. There is therefore adual penalty involved in iniquitous information provision thatsupplies one group or individual with information that canbe used to support their livelihoods and enhance theircompetitiveness in the market, whereas those that are excludedor to whom the information provided is not relevant are lessable to make effective livelihoods decisions or enhance theircompetitiveness.

Democratisation can be seen as one of the principal pillars ofcontemporary development programmes and aid policy, alongwith poverty alleviation, sustainable development andeconomic growth (Bebbington and Thiele, 1993). In LatinAmerica the need to incorporate indigenous campesino interestsinto rural development institutions and strategies, for example,is seen as part of the process of democratisation and a step inthe right direction to make these institutions responsive andaccountable to the rural poor. More direct involvement andparticipation in the institutional processes can be facilitatedboth by information transfer between representatives and bymore opportunities to become involved in local decision-making. The integration of inclusive decision-making processeswithin agricultural research is one example of how promotingthe flow of information can be used to enhance livelihoodsand the process of democratisation. The participatory varietalselection (PVS) methods used by the West African Rice

Development Agency (WARDA) to decide which new ricevarieties should be developed aims to give farmers theopportunity to interact with rice breeders to share informationon their needs and choices. Through processes such as these,information can be used to directly influence decision-makers,thus democratising the development process; and by makingdecisions more effective (such as by selecting rice varietiesthat respond to farmers needs) contribute to the otherdevelopment goals of poverty alleviation, sustainabledevelopment and economic growth (Bebbington andThiele,1993).

Information can contr ibute to democratisation andinformation to support livelihoods can contribute to theprocess in a number of ways by ensuring:• Equality of access to information;• Information for decision-making that is relevant to all

groups;• Participation in wider decision-making, such as through

the transparency of government processes and informationrelating to rights and entitlements;

• Accountability of those institutions responsible forinformation management and transfer to all theirconstituents or stakeholders.

There are problems as mentioned previously relating todeliberate preferential treatment of one group, such ascommercial farmers, to the detriment of others, such as small-scale farmers. The process of democratisation in this sense canonly help to reduce inequality by preventing informationblockages from denying certain groups information that wouldbe useful for their livelihoods. In many developing countriesthe problems of information transfer, such as through theextension system, are as much a result of a weak state withlimited resources being unable to provide a service on thescale required, as they are about active repression, political orotherwise. A recent study of the extension model as part ofthe Neuchâtel initiative (Christoplos et al., 2002) has concludedthat many of the problems associated with service delivery inthe extension systems in developing countries result from theover ambitious nature of their design. Alternative methods ofinformation transfer and service delivery at the local level, beit through NGOs, as suggested by Bebbington (1993), in LatinAmerica or other means, will relieve the state of unrealisticresource allocations resulting in wasted expenditure. Onesuggestion for extension is to consolidate efforts at therural-urban interface, such as the district town level, and ensurethat within that spatial context at least, broad-based access toinformation and services are available (Farrington, 2001). Thismodel could address many of the practical issues for providinginformation for sustainable livelihoods and the process ofdemocratisation can be further enhanced by ensuring locallevel capacity building to identify information needs andpromote suitable ‘information intermediaries’. Public sectorresources could focus on the training of information advisersand the provision of services at the district level with adequatepolicy level support for the agricultural and rural developmentsectors. Methods of information transfer at the village level inrural areas could be coordinated within a broader range ofsupport for community groups, NGOs and sector specificinitiatives for targeted livelihood needs.

Box 7: Easy Internet access and Freeplay

Easy Internet accessThere are a number of efforts to make Internet accesseasier and more widely available, such as through simplerand cheaper hand-held devices (e.g. Oracle and Simputer)and public access points (BT experimenting with Internetconnect phone booths, BP Connect). One solution thatpromises a very cheap and simple solution for people whohave difficulty accessing the Internet due to the cost oravailability of the appropriate infrastructure is to use e-mail. Initiatives such as www.4mail.org developed at theAbdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physicswill send off-line Internet pages on request. The serviceis free and allows up to 500 requests a week, dependingon the size of the files sent. All the user has to do is sendthe web address of the required document or site andthey will receive it in return as an e-mail attachment thatcan be browsed without the need for an Internet connectionor paying for the cost of downloading the information.

FreeplayThe wind-up radio has caught the imagination of manyand turned its inventor Trevor Baylis into a householdname. BayGen has developed the concept and is nowmarketing radios through www.freeplay.net that arepowered by wind-up (manual), solar and rechargeablebattery power. The potential for community empowermentand easy access in developing countries has beenrecognised by a number of aid agencies. For example,The Red Cross have used the radios for communityempowerment and reconciliation through community radioprogrammes in Kosovo. The radios can be used incommunities with no electricity or access to batteries andcan be shared between a number of users.

21


communities. For this reason longer term monitoring andsupport may be required. The quality of local information hasalready been the focus of farming systems analysis developedby the FAO and it has been recommended that micro-levelinformation should be further utilised for agr iculturalprogramme and policy analysis. Although a livelihoodsapproach would put a greater emphasis on the use of micro-level information, quality monitoring at this level is equallyimportant. Relevant types of local information (qualitativeand quantitative) can be categorised as biophysical, relating tofactors such as soil fertility and crop yields and socio-economic,including cultural patterns, prices and household incomes(Dixon et al., 1994). The types of micro-level informationthat are identified as being useful for an improved diagnosis ofagricultural problems and the identification of policy optionscan be expanded to include a range of community informationfor broader rural development strategies. The monitoring andanalysis of micro-level information could contribute to theprocess of stimulating local solutions based on reliable andcomparable information.

Types of micro-level information identified for use in policyanalysis (Dixon et al., 1994):• availability and quality of farm resources• access to common property resources• household and community goals and strategies• farm gate input and product prices• input use, productivity and market surplus• structure and function of local institutions• use of infrastructure and services• historical responses to programmes and policies

Further local information for collection and assimilation intorural development strategies could include:• opportunities for diversification within agriculture and rural

non-farm economy• access to credit, availability of group borrowing facilities• household poverty data• marketing, processing, transport information including

capacity, costs, service availability and market trends• general information services such as weather, news, health

and education campaigns

The relevance and reliability of information should thereforebe monitored not just for improved policy analysis, but also topromote adoption at the local level. The importance of thereliability of information systems applies equally to differentsources of information. The reliability and relevance ofinformation should to be understood and monitored withinthe local context of the user group, in order to build on localpatterns of use and trust to improve information quality.

In this context, information on food and agriculture shouldbe particularly focused on local agro-ecological conditions,weather and topography, as well as local cultural and economicaspects of production, marketing and processing. Theinformation needs to be transparent and up to date withchange-related information, supported by local cases ofsuccessful implementation and adoption of new approaches.Historically, agricultural information transfer at the local levelcan be seen to have contributed to technology transfer on a largescale, and therefore acting as a catalyst for widespread adoption.

Information on a wide range of government activities is onlyrecently being made available to the wider community in manycountries. The media represents a powerful government tooland for information to flow freely government control willinvariably need to be reduced. Where the media does remainlargely controlled by the government there is a need to ensurethat information on the government is as open as possible andavailable equally to everyone. Freedom of the media fromcontrol by national or foreign governments or interests, suchas political parties and the private sector, should ensure openand honest information that provides a positive incentive forgood governance and democratic participation. The broadcastand print media can assist government to inform people oftheir rights and entitlements, as well as mobilising publicsupport for government initiatives. However, there is a furtherresponsibility that government has which is to ensure that allits constituents are able to access information equally. Thisinvolves effective policies and regulatory mechanisms forimproving the communications infrastructure, such as throughpluralistic ownership, to encourage private sector investmentand the decentralisation of services. This can help to extendservice into otherwise ‘remote’ rural areas and ensure that theinformation is relevant to local audiences in terms of bothlanguage and content. Decentralisation can also help to improvelocal government information services as they becomeresponsible for providing transparent information on theirservices that respond to the more local needs of theirconstituents (DFID, 2001b). In India many district levelinformation services are becoming available with Internet sitesthat provide useful information on governance and contactson related markets and private sector services (e.g. http://www.tarahaat.com/) as well as to respond to a wide range oflocal livelihoods needs.

4.4 Appropriate content and context

The relevance and role of information varies according to thecontext in which it is used. Moetsabi (1998) describes ahierarchical information flow process as being betweendifferent levels, from village farmers, district level, provinciallevel, central level. The demands for information are commonlyrelated up and down the hierarchical levels through a processof participatory information sharing. A less hierarchical processof horizontal information sharing can also be promoted withinformation being transferred directly between any of thelevels.

Linking micro and macro-levels

Information can provide a catalyst for people identifying andsetting their own goals and priorities. Information systemsshould be inclusive. Once a process of exchange has beenstimulated with the help of external actors (NGOs,development projects, extension service, etc.) it is importantto ensure the system can be locally adopted (Michiels and VanCrowder, 2001) and used to ask questions and seek answers oflocal relevance with increasing frequency. This can supportimmediate livelihoods needs and longer-term experimentationand training. Information must also be reliable in order tosupport the decision-making process of poor farmers and their

22


This process has been identified by the language diversityassociated with the spread of crops in West Africa. For example,the diffusion of cassava in the Southern zone of Nigeria isreflected in extreme lexical diversity, suggesting that the plantwas carried from one farming community to another andlexical innovation took place based on comparisons withexisting plants in the area. Similarly, the range of vernacularterms for groundnut suggests that the plant was spread fromfarmer to farmer and not by one dominant political or ethnicgroup (Blench, 1998). The processes of information transferneed to be understood in the context of local adoption if thepotential role of information as a catalyst is to be realised.

Linked local learning

Technology is meaningless without content and context, andin order to achieve social development this needs to be locallycentred on the specific needs of the poor and the constraintsto their livelihoods. Supporting communication betweenrelevant institutions may be more important than providingall the content of the Internet at the very local level. Thelinked local learning (LLL) process promoted by CTA in EastAfrica, for example, has been developed to assist the institutionsat every level, from farmers, government departments andNGOs to donors, to deal with the social changes at the districtand village level that are occurring due to decentralisationpolicies. The purpose of developing community level learningstrategies is to assist groups such as farmers to identify their

role as managers of their local context. This brings with it theresponsibility to demand effective services such as researchand extension from the government to support their activities.

Intermediaries that represent community and farmers’organisations can assist in inter-institutional communicationto build on both formal and informal communications linkages.The community, therefore, should benefit from local linkedlearning by the establishment of multi-disciplinary groups thatcan enhance local content resources and locate them withinthe context of existing institutional relationships. A pilot studyto investigate the use of ICTs to enhance this process inTanzania, Uganda and Kenya recommended a combinationof an IT network linking national and district levels with moretraditional means of information and communication at thevillage level (ISG/TDG, 2000). Village level pilots can then beadded where appropriate to provide additional infrastructurefor the benefit of targeted village level stakeholders.The Communication Planning Workshops held in eachcountry also highlighted the importance of using allcommunication channels available and not relying solely onnew technologies right down to the village level. The LLLapproach illustrates that technology at the local level shouldsupport the existing processes of communication betweeninstitutions and help communities to define their own contextin relation to the wider information landscape (ISG/TDG,2000).

FAO’s Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS) appliesan extension of the linked learning concept, encouragingSouth-South sharing of expertise to enhance their communalknowledge. One example is the linking of Egyptian irrigationexperts with farmers in Tanzania to promote learning aboutirrigation, plant nutrition and soil fertility, amongst other issues.The benefit of promoting international linked learning is inthe combined experience of relating specialist expertise tothe constraints identified by local farmers in their own context.An integral part of the SPFS is the constraints analysis itselfthat can help farmers to define their local context in terms ofthe obstacles that they face, such as to the adoption of newtechnologies and improved management practices. At the locallevel, as with LLL, the constraints analysis is part of, if not aprecursor to, the linked learning process, as it is the particularobstacles faced by one group that determine the institutionalrelationships that need to be developed. Capacity buildingamongst local institutions may also require support to assistthe process of knowledge and information sharing. The localcontext must also be understood in relation to other constraintsthat may be of a technical, economic, social, or policy nature.Without an appropriate analysis at the local level, knowledgeand information relating to solutions to obstacles elsewhereor at the regional and national level are unlikely to contributeto the community learning processes. Micro-level informationmanagers and linked learning facilitators should therefore beintegrated into the inter-institutional information flowprocesses and the agr icultural policy cycle to improveknowledge and information sharing.

Box 8: Information content development

The Agence de la Francophonie has established a networkof rural radio stations in Africa to encourage the sharingof costs and programme materials through a programmebank. The Centre Interafricain d�etudes en Radio Ruralede Ougadougou manages the website and programmebank, and provides training for new technologies and acentral facility to purchase equipment and supplies. Thenetwork includes 48 local stations in 10 countries and aimsto assist them in diversifying their programmes by helpingeach other, such as through co-production of programmeson topics of common interest. The stations can get theprogrammes from the website (www.radios-rurales.net),via CD ROM or on audiocassette in local languages(Dioula, Pular, Malinke) and in French for translation intoother local languages.

A programme on rural law was co-produced during aworkshop on law in Senegal, which included lawyers fromsix West African countries and topics ranged from identitycards, marriage and birth certificates to women�s rights inmarriage and to land. The programmes sparked suchinterest in each country that they formed the starting pointfor a series of broadcasts on related issues, such asdivorce, inheritance, access to justice, conflict resolutionwith local NGOs, magistrates and community rightsorganisations participating in the discussion. Furtherdevelopment of interactive question and answerprogrammes has begun with questions collected from thevillages and then answered on air by lawyers. Othernetworks such as those of the CTA and Panos will alsohelp to build the programme bank by linking their ownnetworks and helping to organise forums for discussionand exchanges among stations.

23

Building on Existing Systems

New initiatives should aim to build on the strengths of existingsystems of information exchange. The potential for enhancingthese systems depends on identifying the most appropriateinstitutions and their existing infrastructure constraints. Thefocus on rural systems for improved information exchangewill also depend on a better understanding of the relevantnational and international systems. A key principle of SLapproaches is to:

‘build on people’s perceived strengths and opportunities ratherthan focusing exclusively on their problems and needs’ (FAO,2000d: 2).

Information strategies designed to support sustainablelivelihoods need to start by supporting and enhancing existinginformation and communication systems. An importantelement is to define how existing institutions and networkscan be supported and enhanced through capacity building tomanage the information better in support of SL. Davies (1994)recognised a number of barriers to the use of knowledge. Thesebarriers relate principally to an inability to convert data intoinformation in time for decision-makers to use it and thatincreasingly far too much information is being generated. Theprocess of selection and analysis greatly affects the quality ofinformation that is passed on to other users. It is important tocarry out an assessment of the capacity of those institutionsthat are going to be responsible for converting informationinto accessible and useable packages for others.

Supplement not substitute

Information systems at the international and national levelsupport agricultural development through policy formulation,dissemination and sharing of research, and capacity buildingof government decision-makers. Information relating toagricultural and rural development should be integrated atthe national level into the information system as a whole,through a multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approach. Theobjective should be to coordinate information managementat the national level and identify opportunities for maximisingresource efficiencies and knowledge sharing. Governmentpolicy-makers who rely on information across the sectors, suchas agriculture, health and education, can benefit from improvedcomplementarity between the information systems at theirdisposal. Improved coordination of the activities of bothinternational and national agencies is an important part of theprocess of planning and strategy making for poverty reductionthat is being spearheaded by the PRSP process. An informationstrategy should aim to integrate where possible the relevantinformation content components into the development of acoordinated national information system.

The integration of information initiatives at the district andlocal levels should also ‘provide a supplement, not substitute,

to existing information systems’ (Heeks, 1999). The tendencyfor hierarchical control of information resources within a widerange of institutions makes it difficult to avoid a concomitantdesire to control the systems themselves at many levels. TheInternet was designed as a decentralised network (Berners-Lee, 1999) but not all information systems allow so muchcontrol of the information by the end user. The Internet allowsusers to access information from a wide range of sources, useit for their own purposes and manage it for others to use in amore specific context. In this type of information system thepublic sector will increasingly be expected to monitor thequality of information, rather than attempting to manage andcontrol all the information without the capacity to do so.

The emergence of new modes of knowledge production andexchange has profound implications because it creates problemsand tensions for existing institutions. Developing countriesmay find that they are ‘locked in’ to a mode of knowledgeproduction that is increasingly less relevant to their specificdevelopmental needs. Organisational change and flexibilitygo hand-in-hand with the adoption of new modes andmethods of learning. However, historical practices and routines,and social, economic and political events make these processesof institutional innovation and change highly unpredictable.

Government Capacity

Government capacity to use, manage and disseminateinformation varies according to a number of factors, includingthe political system, the financial resources available, thestrength of the state, and the motivations and capacity of thedecision-makers. In many developing countries the intentionexists to manage and provide information in a democraticway, but the resources are not available to provide theinfrastructure and training required. Where governments arethemselves working to improve information management anddissemination there is a role for international organisations toassist in the process of capacity building at the government level.

There are a number of international policy mechanisms forbuilding developing country capacity and engaginggovernments in the process of sharing experience and lessonlearning for improved policy-making. The CommonwealthTelecommunications Organisation (CTO) and theInternational Telecommunications Union (ITU) are, forexample, engaging policy-makers in developing countries indiscussions regarding the potential for improvingtelecommunications infrastructure and pricing throughimproved regulatory frameworks, including sectorliberalisation. The focus for policy-makers should be onestablishing an effective regulatory environment to promoteappropriate infrastructure investments, avoiding developmentof exclusive monopolies and encouraging interconnection andnon-discriminatory terms for network access. They also need

5. Building on Existing Systems

5.1 Building capacity of existing systems

24


to ensure that suppliers take into account a wide range of userneeds within the wider spatial and demographic context.

A number of key lessons and principles for building thecapacity of knowledge management systems can be identifiedthrough analysis of the practical reality of those systems(Richardson, 2001). Many of these apply more generally toinformation systems. Effective systems have specific users whodemand specific information to inform decisions for whichthey are held accountable. Users tend to contribute and useinformation when there are clear rewards for doing so. Thereis a tendency to overestimate the demand for informationmanagement by policy-makers and assume improvedinformation management will lead to improved decision-making. Systems tend to be over-designed, whereas those withthe highest use and downstream adaptation tend to be simpleand modest in scope. In most cases, more information iscollected than actually analysed and applied towards decision-making. Systems should first concentrate only on informationthat directly informs priority decisions. Effective systems alsooften build on existing databases, taking advantage of currentdata collection routines. Many information managementinterventions tend to focus on technical solutions created bytechnical teams, and overlook the organisational processes andinstitutional incentives that drive information use. Newinformation can create ‘losers’ who may actively resistimplementation, therefore stakeholder/user consensus isimportant and broadening information use at all levels tendsto increase the likelihood of ownership (Richardson, 2001).

The World Bank Institute (WBI) provides a forum forgovernment capacity to create knowledge strategies byproviding discussion and training events for high-leveldecision-makers. A knowledge policy forum, in collaborationwith the British Council (in 2001), helped high-levelgovernment officials from India, China and Brazil developnational knowledge strategies and discuss their respectivesolutions to the problems of information management foreffective government. The Brazilian government, for example,developed a centralised information management system witha private sector company using satellite monitoring andcommunication equipment to alleviate the drought in theNorth Eastern Region following widespread drought warningsfor the region in 1998. The Asa Branca scheme trainedgovernment staff to use vehicles equipped with tracking andcommunication devices to report on the drought situationand closely monitor events in a defined area of the affectedregion. As reports were made, government resources could beused to send relief to the exact location most in need ofassistance, avoiding waste of resources and delays caused bylocal government. The planning centre was also monitored bytrained staff who were able to anticipate the situation on theground using the regularly updated information and developcoordinated rescue packages for the whole area. This exampleillustrates how a combination of information andcommunication infrastructure and training can be used toprovide specific information that enables the government tofunction more effectively.

A broader inter-governmental collaboration to discuss thepolicy issues relating to knowledge and information for foodsecurity and agr iculture exist in the Consultation on

Agricultural Information Management (COAIM). The firstCOAIM held in June 2000 at FAO was attended by 161representatives from the 91 Member countr ies of theorganisation, and the second COAIM was held in September2002. FAO’s WAICENT Outreach activities play a key role incapacity building in member countries as part of the ongoingprocess of decentralisation. Training in member countries couldalso be part of a collaborative process with other organisations,overseen by the FAO to ensure that international standardsare applied in the context of national and local informationneeds. International organisations with regional networks suchas the CAB International (CABI), the Technical Centre forAgricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) and theInternational Institute for Communication and Development(IICD) represent potential partners for collaborative approachesto government level capacity building in informationmanagement. Bilateral donors such as the IDRC and DFIDare also widely involved in promoting inter-governmentaldialogue and capacity building amongst decision-makers andcould form the basis for future partnerships together withnational private sector and civil society organisations. In orderto identify and address the diverse information needs indeveloping country governments and design relevant trainingprogrammes, a wide range of organisations will need to becoordinated in partnership.

The key areas for future capacity building initiatives will involveassisting governments to:• Engage in inter-governmental policy processes;• Develop and implement national strategic plans for

information and communication;• Integrate national networks to provide comprehensive

information systems;• Decentralise control to allow local government ownership

and adoption of information;• Design innovative solutions using new technologies within

an appropriate policy framework (e.g. for private sectordevelopment, research and academic institutionalinvolvement).

The importance of collaboration for capacity buildinginitiatives will depend on the relative expertise of theorganisations involved. Some organisations are better suitedto providing technical assistance in information managementmore generally, whilst others are more suited to providingsector specific information content and tools. There willinevitably be some overlap and organisations, such as FAO, inbuilding capacity for the management of food and agricultureinformation will, at the same time, build capacity moregenerally (FAO, 1998). This should not only be regarded as apositive outcome but should be identified within collaborativepartnerships to avoid unnecessary duplication of the activitiesof international organisations. There is a danger that a plethoraof uncoordinated international initiatives promoted by differentagencies of the UN system (e.g. UNESCO, UNITes),multilateral development banks and bilateral donors overlapunnecessarily in certain regions and sectors whilst leavingothers under funded. New initiatives should be clearly locatedwithin the context of existing programmes for capacitybuilding and aim to contribute to overall informationmanagement strategy for the countries and governmentsinvolved.

25


Social capacity to use information

Policies are required to build local capacity as developingcountries need to mobilise their human capabilities andcombine them in the most effective way. New technologiescan mediate knowledge-related activities, but do not automatethese activities by themselves (Crede and Mansell, 1998). Inorder to assist governments and service providers to becomemore demand driven, local capacity in information collection,storage and dissemination will also need to be enhanced inorder to bridge the gap between the users and providers.Education leading to basic literacy and numeracy, especiallyfor marginalised groups, is a priority for improving localcapacity to use and generate information (see Box 10).

Capacity building support from government should encouragelocal information systems to generate more information locally,for local dissemination. Governments and service providerscould assist in making information accessible according to the

demands of local institutions, in terms of identifying the rangeof information that is available to choose from, rather thanmaking that choice for them. Local level government can alsoassist in the management of information in a format that canbe easily accessible and usable to the institutions andcommunities that are the ultimate beneficiaries of localgovernment services.

Support to grassroots organisations and local level governmentfor improving information management can take many forms.The FAO has been involved in a number of projects, such asthe example in Box 9, that support training of local levelanimators and information specialists who are able to bothcapture and disseminate information that is focussed on thelocal context. The important factor to be mentioned here isthat many of the processes of training local groups andindividuals are themselves essential for the promotion ofcontextual information, due to the confidence that is gainedfrom developing communication skills, often through thesimplest methods available, such as face to face meetings anddiscussion. The farmer field schools developed by the FAOare a good example of a process approach that could bepromoted in a wider context of capacity building for improvedlocal level information management that corresponds withmore formal training mechanisms, such as those for literacy.Processes that encourage local ownership, self-learning andthe sharing of information amongst local groups would helpto promote grassroots capacity building that responds moredirectly to local needs. Information that is then generated anddisseminated locally is more likely to be sustainable throughthe informal and decentralised processes that occur.

Technical capacity

There are a number of technological developments that willundoubtedly improve the way that information is managedand disseminated. The COAIM recognised the important rolethat FAO has in the area of technical capacity building, boththrough developing standards and ensuring appropriate useof ICTs. The need for developing information managementstandards is a growing one as more information is generatedand the potential for sharing information increases. Standardssuch as the AGROVOC agricultural vocabulary already havewide support, but the need to build technical capacity at thenational and regional level was highlighted by COAIM,together with a number of initiatives to achieve this. FAO isalso developing the Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) foruse in document management, and technical capacities willneed to be developed to implement such tools, particularly atthe national level. Close collaboration with other internationaland intergovernmental capacity building initiatives couldensure both the efficient use of resources and the developmentof training packages. The use of other more generalisedinformation and communication technologies will also requiresignificant capacity building. In many remote rural areas theuse of ICTs will depend as much on technical capacity buildingfor local institutions to use them effectively, as on theinfrastructure itself (Ballantyne et al., 2000).

Box 9: Audio-visual production services centre(CESPA)

CESPA was established in the early 1990s as part of FAO�ssupport to the Office des Produits Agricoles in Mali. It builtupon the initial success of rural training projects, targetinga large number of local agents, using a mass trainingmethod of using videos. With additional support fromUNDP, the aims of this FAO-run project were multi-sectoral: farmer training covered crop-farming as well asanimal husbandry, health, environmental education,culture and village water supply. Between 1990 and 1992the project recruited and trained a number of audio-visualtrainers and produced a range of multimedia trainingpackages. Later phases were affected by politicalupheaval. Under increasing pressure to generate returnsto investment and demonstrate sustainability, CESPA wastransformed from a State service into a legally registeredand financially autonomous company supporting public,industrial and commercial enterprise.

Between 1990 and 1998 CESPA successfullystrengthened the centre�s human resources, those of ruralcommunities and of development agents, and increasedtheir skills. It produced 23 training specialists and a rangeof audio-visual communication for development toolswhich were used to train 48,000 people in over 183 townsand villages in Mali. The methodology is based on aparticipatory approach, aimed at discovering the needsand expectations of the populations concerned, with a viewto producing videos and manuals, and providing practicaltraining for trainers and local people. Born of the need tocreate new, appropriate and immediate learning methodsso as to provide isolated rural populations with educationopportunities, the CESPA philosophy encourages localpopulations to participate in development programmes inresponse to their own specific needs. Experience showsthat villagers who receive this kind of training acquire agreater ability to cope with their problems, make gooduse of their knowledge and become competent agents inraising awareness of neighbouring rural communities. Inthe sub-region, the CESPA has become a recognisedprovider of services for the communication componentsof development projects.

Communication for Development Report1996�1997 (FAO, 1999b)

26


Box 10: Basic literacy before computer literacy?

There are many different software programmes that range from easy to difficult to use, depending on a users experience.Computer programmes are easier to use after some basic training has been completed, to enable the user to performcommands and simple tasks, and learn how to interact with the computer through the keyboard and mouse. This, however,relies on basic literacy skills to type, read instructions and navigate the menus on the software programme. There are 876million illiterate people worldwide and therefore many of the poorest, who are most in need of information to support theirlivelihoods, are restricted to oral and aural communication. This is one of the reasons why rural radio has such potentialto communicate with farmers in developing countries � it does not require them to be able to read or write before beingable to access the information being broadcast. Television and video can also be used in this way to promote learningwithout literacy and can also be used as a multi media tool to assist learning of all types, including basic literacy. A reviewof the impact of video technology in education found that 92% of teachers interviewed in North American schools consideredthat television and video helped them to be more effective teachers. Video tapes can also be interactive and allow teacheror student control over the pace of the learning process. Direct training by experts can also be achieved by interactivetelevision and was used by the Indira Ghandi Open University to provide more primary school teachers as part of agovernmental initiative to expand elementary education to all children in India. The Indian Space Research Organisationassisted in the two-way video and audio interaction, broadcast via satellite with pre-recorded video instructions and faceto face interaction with facilitators at remote sites. This enabled direct communication and a larger number of teachers,even in remote areas, were able to receive training from the experts (Jurich, 1999). According to a DFID (2001a) report onthe Challenge of Universal Primary Education, � there is a growing body of evidence that locally managed and maintainedtechnologies, such as radio and electronic networking of teacher and community resource centres, can facilitate andsustain distance learning and reduce or contain the costs of teacher education.�

There are other technological initiatives relevant to basic literacy education. The Simputer, developed by the IndianInstitute of Sciences in Bangalore and Encore, a local software company, incorporates text-to-speech software calledIlliterate Markup Language (IML) that can also translate English text into a variety of Indian languages. At present theSimputer can translate and read in Tamil, Hindi and Kannada and other languages should be possible. E-books are alsobeing developed (such as the EB dedicated reader www.everybook.net) that can store 500,000 pages and can displaytext on LCD touch screens that enable the reader to make notes, underline and look up the meaning of words. Futureversions are likely to be books that read themselves aloud, have added sounds and music to accompany the text

(TechKnowlogia, 1999). Literacy, therefore, should not beconsidered apart from computer literacy, but should beincorporated into the wider information andcommunication strategies that include the developmentof computer technologies and electronic networks in theirpolicies and planning. A key message emerging from theDFID conference in Nepal on �Literacy for Livelihoods�was not only that literacy can be an effective vehicle forempowerment for poverty reduction, but that the conceptof literacy needs broadening to that of �communicationand information� strategies with a particular focus on localcontext and needs. The conference also concluded thatthe Sustainable Livelihoods Approach provides a helpfulframework for linking literacy and human capital needswith livelihoods and that future activities should includecross-sectoral knowledge management programmes inclose partnership with other organisations.

Literacy for LivelihoodsThe benefit of the literacy for livelihoods approach is that it helps to set illiteracy in the complex, multi-dimensional contextof poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion that impacts on an individual�s health, economic and educational opportunitiesand self-esteem. Literacy as a fundamental educational requirement has in the past failed to include a holistic analysisbased on the local context, priorities and needs. Literacy for livelihoods approaches focus on the empowering potential ofeducation, and access to education, like information, helps to break down the barriers of social exclusion. In Uganda,Literacy and Basic Education (LABE) provides literacy training to other organisations working in areas such as agriculturalproduction and marketing. LABE teaches trainers how to teach people to read and write and how to create readingmaterials in local languages. Community groups, such as women�s groups and youth groups, help to identify potential�Literacy�instructor trainers (LITs)� who receive training, then return to the community and each teach a further 20 to 25people to teach village classes up to twice a week for two hours. This cascading approach is in contrast to the two-wayvideo and audio interaction broadcast via satellite used by the Indira Ghandi Open University mentioned above. However,the focus on developing local reading material for the community groups and the scalability of the cascade approachmake it appropriate for this type of informal decentralised training.* In December 1999 there were 413 LITs and a further1,296 Learning instructors teaching 677 classes in 46 Districts throughout Uganda. Over 80% of the roughly 15,000learners were women.

(Mundy and Sultan, 2001 and DFID, 2001b)* For further discussion on literacy and livelihoods see Scott-Goldman, J. (2001)

Adults at an evaluating session for acomputer-based information network, South Africa

Pho

to ©

Mar

gare

t Kie

ser/N

R In

tern

atio

nal

27


Training programmes need to address the institutional demandsfor capacity building at different levels that are relevant to theactual technologies available. FAO has a role to assist in thecoordination of capacity building and training activities toensure that institutions are receiving appropriate training tosuit their information management needs. This may involvebuilding partnerships with other organisations that are involvedin training at the national, regional and local level, to ensurethe best use of existing agricultural information and theintegration of standards into capacity building. The importanceof face-to-face and other ‘low-tech’ communication methodsshould not be underestimated and the links between technicalcapacity building initiatives and the more traditionalinformation users need to be developed (Munyua, 2000).

Efforts to bridge gaps in information systems, digital orotherwise, need to address the question of what infrastructureis available that can be built upon. The Acacia initiative andPanAsia discussed previously use basic ICT infrastructure andshared access models such as telecentres. Although theunderlying infrastructure capacity differs between these tworegional initiatives, the objectives are similar, namely topromote e-mail and Internet access, to promote knowledgeexchange through networking, and to identify the mostappropriate technologies, systems and policies through appliedresearch. Community telecentres are being promoted as a cross-sectoral approach to meeting the information needs of thepoor and in remote rural areas they can dramatically reducethe physical distances that need to be travelled to support arange of livelihood needs. Telephone services, computertraining, e-mail and Internet are being promoted as knowledgesharing tools that can benefit the poor, however, based on theprevailing context of low literacy rates and non-existentinfrastructure (for electricity and telecommunications) it isimportant not to ignore the existing systems and networks ofrural radio, village plays and theatre music and oral traditions.

5.2 Realistic technological approaches

Information and communication initiatives for developmentare a fairly recent phenomenon, but the rate at which they arebeing adopted by all manner of institutions throughout theworld is testimony to the perceived potential. In fact thepossibilities for improving all systems and processes throughimproved access to information and better communicationare endless (because blockages to totally ‘free’ and universalinformation flow will always exist and therefore there will

always be room for improvement). Attempts to monitor theexistence of new initiatives, let alone their impact, areincreasingly heroic as the scale of the task rapidly expands,and innovative applications of new technologies andcombinations of new and old technology are applied to bothnew and old social, economic and political processes. A reportby Bridges.org (2001) identifies over a hundred, mostly largescale international initiatives, ranging in scope from the privatesector to NGOs, volunteer programmes, healthcare and thedigital divide. It is clear that the scale of initiatives is vast andwith even greater opportunities for small-scale decentralisedapplications at the national and local level, any real coordinationis going to be increasingly difficult. Instead, common modelsand approaches are being developed that echo the call forrealistic approaches to the technologies that avoid technocraticdeterminism because ‘it is not about the technology, it is aboutthe people’ (Brideges.org, 2001). Heeks (1998) identifies anumber of reasons why technology is not used properly inpublic sector reform in India, reasons that are largely due tothe level of understanding of both the technology and itspotential by decision-makers. This results in a range of reactionsby public sector officials, including ignoring its potential,isolating it within the computer department, idolising it andpromoting unsustainable schemes or more realisticallyintegrating it within an information focused strategy. Thesereactions and responses to new technology could be observedin managers and organisations around the world and a realisticintegration approach would not necessarily predominate anymore than it did in Heeks’ Indian study.

The importance of documenting and monitoring theexperience of others, as noted by Bridges.org (2001), is toimprove lesson-learning across organisations that may find iteasier to observe the failure of approaches in the experiencesof others. The Commonwealth of Learning (COL) aims tostrengthen the learning capacity of organisations by buildingcollaborations and working with a wide range of organisations.The COL is partnered with a number of Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres andwith the National Academy of Agricultural ResearchManagement (NAARM) in Hyderabad to developtechnology-enhanced distance learning courses on agriculturalresearch management. The COL produces a wide range oftraining materials and a recent report on telecentres documentsexperiences from practitioners around the world. Themonitoring and evaluation of initiatives across a wide rangeof different contexts such as this can help to ensure that realisticapproaches to technology can be applied to social developmentgoals through improved lesson learning and the formulationof collective approaches (Latchem and Walker, 2001). TheRockefeller Foundation has also published a comprehensivereview of over 50 case studies. One of the findings of thereport is that the evaluation process tends to be lessparticipatory and people-centred than many of the projectsthemselves. This is due mainly to the fact that new approachesto evaluation have not been developed as quickly as some ofthe approaches to using new technology and communicationmethods for development. The tendency towards donor drivenand external consultant-led evaluations does not necessarilyhelp to identify the lessons to be shared for developing realisticapproaches to technologies amongst a wide range of usergroups from their own perspective (Dagron, 2001).

PHOTO18

Dogon women in Mali listening to the radio as they work

Pho

to ©

Rho

dri J

ones

/Pan

os P

ictu

res

28


Box 11: Assessing the scale and context ofinformation needs

Listening to the Poor: Central to any efforts to expanduseful ICT access to the poor is knowledge of their needsand current degree of access. This is especially true forpublicly supported subsidy programmes designedspecifically to assist the poor. Examples include thefollowing (Kenny et al., 2000):� Data on users and their needs, including

comprehensive information on excluded areas andgroups, along with nationwide user surveys on needsand priorities;

� An audit of infrastructure in place, including physical,educational, and institutional resources;

� A survey of business services and electronic commerceexperience and practices, including existing electroniccommerce and banking initiatives.

Household or community surveys are key � either stand-alone surveys or �piggy-backing� on other poverty researchefforts. Unfortunately, household use of and access toinfrastructure services have not been a primary topic ofinterest in Living Standards Measurement Surveys(LSMS). As a result, most surveys collect only basicinformation about how households supply themselves withcommunication services. The surveys rarely containinformation about the sources available to households orabout the quality of the service they receive. For the ICTsector, useful additional information might include:� Whether the household has a radio, telephone, Internet-

enabled computer, (and if so, what type);� If not, why not;� Whether the household has access to a radio, public

phone, telecentre, or post-office;� Distance to public communications services;� What households spend on radio, telephone and

Internet per month;� What the household spends in total on communication.

(Kenny et al., 2000)

The World Bank, amongst other organisations, has attemptedto highlight the wide range of information technologiesavailable and their potential application to information foragricultural and rural development, with particular emphasison their own projects. Information technology such as CDROM, computer networks, desktop publishing, GeographicInformation Systems, interactive video, pocket radio, mobileand satellite communications, can all be assessed in the contextof rural development needs and costs helping to identify thereal advantages for people’s livelihoods. The ease with whichtechnology can be used, the increases in computing powerand the reduction of costs, all combine to make technologiesincreasingly applicable to rural development needs. Theimportance of using technology to tackle rural developmentissues has been widely recognised (Zijp, 1994), but the problemof reconciling scale with available resources is ever present.Identifying the scale of technological and infrastructuralrequirements is the starting point for a realistic approach tousing technology for development.

The wide array of case studies and pilot programmes, such asthose in the reports mentioned above, portray an almostuniversal application of ‘some’ technology, even in the mostremote circumstances (e.g. International TelecommunicationsUnion pilot projects from South Africa to Bhutan andMongolia). However, these belie the reality that the vastmajority of the rural poor, who remain the target beneficiariesof many development programmes, use information that isonly communicated face–to–face and by word of mouth. FAOhas developed a number of monitoring systems such as FoodInsecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System(FIVIMS) to provide a detailed profile of the location andcontext of those suffering from food insecurity. The State ofFood Insecurity (2000) estimates that 792 million people in98 developing countries are undernourished (1996–98) andthat the number is declining by approximately 8 million peryear. Although daunting, it is also essential to analyse the fullextent of telecommunications and IT infrastructuredeficiencies in order that realistic measures that address thescale of the problem can be planned with effective monitoringof implementation against targets (DOT Force, 2001).

IFAD (2001) assesses the international and regional scale ofpoverty, estimating that 1.2 bn people world-wide live on lessthan a dollar a day and that 75% of the world’s poor live andwork in rural areas. There are also a number of recent studiesby organisations, such as the World Bank, ITU and UNDP,that help to define the digital divide and more generaltechnological disparities between nations through internationaland regional comparisons. The UNDP (2001) has developedan innovative approach to mapping the scale of technologydisparities through a Technology Achievement Index (TAI),which identifies how well a country is developing and usingtechnology, as well as building its human skills base. Thecomposite index is comprised of the following factors:• Creation of technology, focussing on the ability to innovate;• Diffusion of recent innovations, based on the use of the

Internet and technology based exports;• Diffusion of old innovations, focussing on telephones and

electricity;• Human skills, amongst both creators and users of

technology.

Nations have been ranked according to their index value intofour categories: leaders (TAI above 0.5); potential leaders(0.49–0.35); dynamic adopters (0.20–0.34); and marginalised(below 0.2). (UNDP, 2001). India, for example, is categorisedas a dynamic adopter which is a lower ranking than might beexpected due to the poor diffusion rate for old technologiesand Ghana is ranked as marginalised for the same reason,although it does not have the dynamic approaches to newtechnologies and exports that helps to elevate India’s ranking.(Uganda does not yet have a ranking due to insufficient data.)The mapping of the technology context should help designrealistic approaches to technologies for information andcommunication that assist in the diffusion of both old andnew technologies.

In developing countries the most realistic approaches beingimplemented today directly address the issue of scale, bothspatial and demographic. A combination of linking old andnew technologies, use of mass media and technology sharingcan reach the greatest number of people, over the largestdistances and with the least infrastructure investment.Telecentres are based on a model of community access thatenables rural people to share technologies, such as computersand telephone lines, to use and transfer information for theirlivelihoods. Mass media such as radio and television can reach

29


large audiences and the potential exists for digital broadcastingvia cable and satellite to continue to reach wider audiences ata lower cost. Old and new media can therefore be effectivelycombined to achieve both widespread coverage and locallyrelevant information, such as the example of connecting theKothmale radio station to the Internet given in Box 12.Appropr iate models for the widespread coverage ofinformation must also consider the users ability to accessinformation. Ilboudo (2000) emphasises the importance ofknowing the audience and the need for radio to bedecentralised for local ownership through rural radio networks.Bridges.org (2001) emphasises this further with reference tothe importance of ‘real access’, of which only one factor isphysical access and the local relevance and socio-cultural factorsare seen as a priority. FAO has supported a wide range of ruralradio initiatives over the past 35 years in order to promoteagricultural information transfer and training (FAO/CTA,2001). In Benin, for example, a programme to improve diseasecontrol in the rabbit-breeding sector was designed with acommunication component using rural radio to provide rabbitbreeders with relevant information and launch a radiocampaign to promote the use of rabbit meat. Panos and theWorld Association of Community Broadcasters (AMARC),are attempting to build the capacity of rural radio stations byhosting a database of radio-clip resources that are made availableto local radio stations for translation into local languages viatranscripts or direct re-broadcasting.

Many poor communities live very close to existinginfrastructure without any of the benefits and the cost ofconnecting them up would be relatively small. Fibre opticcables and telecommunications infrastructure passes along roadsand railways en route to the target market in many countriesand existing satellites also provide huge potential for morewidespread access. There is a need to tackle the policy andmarket based obstacles and inefficiencies through morecomprehensive national strategies and the mobilisation ofresources for more equitable information infrastructure.However, in the context of existing infrastructure, realisticapproaches to technologies need to maximise their potentialfor those most in need of information in support of theirlivelihoods. (See Table 2 for examples of approaches.)

Information sharing can be extended not only by significantinfrastructure investments, but other methods such as the useof video and overhead projectors or even silk-screenduplicators. CD ROMs and DVDs can store very largeinformation resources such as from existing Internet gatewayinitiatives (e.g. Humanity Development Library) and can easilybe used to make information more widely available. There is aneed for a broader understanding of the role and applicationof the technologies in order to assess the most realisticapproaches and to identify the most effective methods of usingICTs to achieve development objectives (Burke, 1999).

5.3 Strengthening partnerships

The purpose of this section is to outline the differentapproaches to knowledge sharing, help identify existingknowledge and information gaps, and suggest ways to improveinformation systems through the innovative partnerships.

Knowledge transfer

Knowledge transfer occurs when information is passedbetween a group of individuals, such as the members of afarmers’ organisation, or between one group and another.Institutional structures have been described according to waythey interrelate with one another and facilitate informationexchange through hierarchical, horizontal and networkingprocesses (Moetsabi, 1998; Starkey, 1997). Knowledge transferat each level takes place between individuals and organisationsincreasing capacity at that level and enhancing knowledge inthe whole system. The transfer of information between thedifferent levels depends on the extent to which the differentlevels are able to communicate with each other within aparticular information system. Figures 4 and 5 attempt toillustrate some of the different knowledge sharing processesfrom a hierarchical (vertical top-down) institutional knowledgetransfer system to a more pluralistic horizontal knowledgesharing and networking approach.

In Figure 4 information flows between the organisations andindividuals within the respective levels and facilitatesknowledge transfer. Information flows between the hierarchicallevels tend to be vertical between certain points or individualsin one level that have established links with the level above orbelow in the hierarchical structure. The level of overlap is

Box 12: Rural radio as an Internet intermediary

Rural radio as a method of information delivery has severaladvantages. Firstly, both the radio unit and programmingand delivery mechanisms are among the cheapest formsof mass media. Secondly, radio signals can penetrateremote geographic regions, and any individual with accessto a radio set can receive information, regardless of literacyor educational level. Finally, rural radio provides region-specific information, easily incorporates local concernsand feedback, and can operate in local languages. Radioprogrammes have been used widely in education, but alsoto support gender training, as part of drought mitigationprogrammes, and to promote a range of health issuesand practices.

Rural radio can also benefit from the presence of theInternet. In Kothmale, Sri Lanka, a joint project betweenUNESCO, the Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications andthe Media, the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, andthe Sri Lanka Telecommunication Regulatory Commissionuses radio as an interface between rural people and theInternet. A daily one hour live radio programme in whichan announcer and a panel of resource persons browsethe Internet at the requests of listeners, has proven to becapable of overcoming linguistic barriers in using theInternet experienced by non-English speakers. The radiostation adds value to the information by interpreting it intoa local context, by broadcasting it in vernacular languages,and by providing a platform for feedback through localdiscussion and networks of local correspondents. Inaddition to the radio programme, the Kothmale Communityradio station is developing a rural database (http://www.kirana.lk), primarily by packaging public domaininformation often requested by listeners for off-line use.

(Kenny et al.,2000)

30


determined by the number of linkages or contacts that existbetween the adjoining levels in the hierarchy. Where theoverlap is limited, gaps can be identified in the hierarchicalknowledge transfer process and efforts can be made tostrengthen the links and information exchange betweentargeted institutions and individuals.

The information systems at the various levels in the Figure 5model remain independent, but far more interaction andknowledge transfer can take place between any level througha pluralistic or horizontal knowledge sharing process. Thisreduces the potential for blockages as organisations andindividuals have a greater chance of communicating directlywith organisations at different levels, accessing otherinformation sources and increasing knowledge transfer. Thisprocess requires transparency and openness, together with

Table 2: Examples of realistic approaches

Freeplay Foundation

Initiative Realistic approach Organisation

Vercon, FarmNet Linking farmers, research & extension together, enhancingcommunication networks two-way information flows, & buildinginformation database resources.

FAO

Acacia, PanAsia Telecentres for community shared access. IDRC, ITU, UNESCO

e-villages Community access & women’s empowerment through role asinformation managers.

MSSRF

WorLD Links for Development Teacher training in the use of the Internet for teaching &connections made between secondary schools in developing &developed countries.

World Bank

Grameen phone Mobile telephone networks with coverage in rural areas inBangladesh. Women’s empowerment as telephone operators usingmicro-loans to buy handsets & pay for line rental.

Grameen Shakti

Worldspace/ WorldspaceFoundation

Digital radio via satellite increasing the number ofchannels available & potential for access/service inremote rural communities.

Worldspace

Linked Local Learning (LLL) Community networking for innovative extension models usingICTs including the Internet, e-mail, computers & radio tointegrate existing National, District & Village level systems.

CTA, Neuchâtel Initiative

Freeplay Radio Wind-up radio technology combined with solar power &rechargeable batteries for cheaper long term radio access indeveloping countries.

appropriate communication networks and infrastructure tofacilitate the enhanced information exchange. Starkey (1997)identifies a number of different network models that exist tofacilitate improved information exchange and knowledgetransfer relating to a particular subject or membershiporganisation. Horizontal networking avoids the tendency ofone group within a network to dominate the others and canassist in promoting further decentralised networking. Theimportance of clear strategic objectives and a committed coregroup of active members is greater in horizontal networks tomaintain the focus of activities across multiple levels because areliance on hierarchical control is no longer appropriate.

A distinction can also be made between those organisationsthat exist solely for networking purposes and those thatperform some networking functions. Nelson and Farrington

(1994) identify the different types oforganisation as information exchangenetworks (IEN) and organisationswith a networking function (ONF),distinguishing clearly between theparticipatory process of communi-cation exchange involved innetworking and the more centralised,unidirectional information servicesprovided by organisations such as CABInter national, CTA and FAO.Decentralised networking is morerepresentative of the type ofinformation and knowledge transferthat is f acilitated by the newinformation and communicationtechnologies, such as the Internet, andis likely to become increasingly popular(Berners-Lee, 1999; Negroponte,1995). The extent to which someform of central control or institutional

Figure 4: Hierarchical model of information flow and knowledge transferbetween multiple levels

Individual and community based organisationsinvolved in participation and learning.

District/Regional Government, NGOs, Private Sector.

National government, NGOs, Private Sector,Research Centres, Universities.

International agencies, databases ofinternational & national statistics, Regionalresearch centres, International NGOs,Multinational Corporations.

District level:Ministry of Agriculturedistrict offices,extension service

International level:FAO, WAICENT,FIVIMS, CGIAR

National level:National AgriculturalPolicy makers, nationalsuppliers, importers,exporters, policy levelNGOs

Examples:

Local level:Farmer organisations,village level producerorganisations

31


authority is required in future will largely depend on theresources available for communication infrastructure, trainingand the degree of information quality monitoring needed.Electronic communication tools enable greater participationand feedback into information service provision that willimprove the opportunities for both networking anddecentralisation of information management.

The UNDP (2001) describes the combination of currenttechnology driven social transformations with the broadereconomic transformation driven by globalisation as a newparadigm termed ‘the network age.’ An important element ofthe network age is the opportunity to increase participationat every level. This can result in shar ing informationmanagement responsibilities, more efficient use of theinformation and resources available, and facilitate greatlyimproved knowledge transfer.

Promoting partnerships

The network age, the information society, the decentralisationof knowledge networks all describe the current social processesthat are creating a plethora of opportunities for developingnew partnerships. In Brazil, the Information Society Program(SocInfo) has a budgeted US$1.33 bn to promote informationprojects through partnerships between government, privatesector organisations, civil society and the academic sector. Awide range of activities have been identified for the programmefor the period between 2000 and 2003 along seven lines ofaction, ranging from government for all, to contents andcultural identity. The seven lines of action and over 150 specificproject activities are the result of a national consultation processculminating in the Green Book. Together with the lines ofaction and specific activities, the Green Book provides guidingprinciples for the project activities and recommends the useof balanced partnerships, including NGOs, government, theprivate sector including small businesses, and universities, topromote the economic and social development of Braziliansociety. This type of knowledge sharing across sectors andbetween agencies is desirable and is a key principle of SL, butis inherently difficult. Responses to the needs of the poor arelikely to be required from several sectors, yet in reality project

preparation generally has to be ‘owned’ or ‘championed’ by asingle government department. This might be overcome inrural areas by working with cross-cutting departments, suchas Rural Development, but it is generally the sectoraldepartments (agriculture, forestry) which are the strongest andtend to work in the most compartmentalised ways (Krantz, 2001).

In the partnerships model (see Figure 6) information andknowledge sharing effectively take place within one ‘global‘information system, within which individual partnerships areestablished to serve the knowledge and information needs ofthe partners, through a flexible and participatory process ofknowledge transfer. Partnerships can be established betweenindividuals and organisations at any level and the boundariesbetween the levels effectively disappear. The partnershipbecomes a dynamic and flexible relationship for informationexchange and knowledge sharing that supports the needs andobjectives of the partners involved. Partnerships can be longor short term, resulting in permanent or infrequent interactionsand the communication capacity within the whole informationsystem is enhanced by each partnership, helping to developlarge-scale knowledge transfer.

Knowledge transfer and sharing at a local level can have aparticular impact on livelihoods because it is at this level thatthe majority of the poor are located within local knowledgeand information systems. The demands for externalinformation are high, but due to limited supply or access toexternal knowledge and information, local systems havedeveloped to utilise those existing networks (such as familyand friends, neighbouring farmers) that are reliable and readilyavailable. These systems could benefit greatly from increasedaccess to information and a wider choice of informationsources that can contribute to livelihood decision-making.Delivery mechanisms and appropriate institutions need to beidentified to help facilitate knowledge sharing at a local level,through the development of community knowledgepartnerships. Existing programmes, such as those funded byDFID and the FAO, could usefully be located within the abovemodels for information and knowledge sharing, in order toidentify the current processes of knowledge transfer betweenthe multiple levels and opportunities for improving programmedesign. The potential for managing and disseminatinginformation at different levels can be identified which thenrequires the identification of appropriate delivery mechanismsand institutions that can be used to promote knowledge sharingfor sustainable livelihoods.

Figure 5: Pluralistic �horizontal� model of informationflow and knowledge transfer between multiple levels

International

National District

Community

Figure 6: Partnerships model for information andknowledge sharing between multiple levels

International National

District Community

32


In developing countries, knowledge transfer at a localised, ruralcommunity level often requires the most support. This is dueto the limited formal education services available, and the lackof infrastructure and access to wider information networks.Support at this level, however, does not mean simply deliveringexternal information that is of little direct relevance to thelocal context, but instead building local capacity to requestand access information according to their specified needs. Toprovide better information for improved livelihoods at thislevel, community knowledge partnerships could be establishedbetween those individuals and groups at a community levelthat generate and hold locally relevant information; andbetween external partners that can share other informationsources for the benefit of the community. The partnershipsneed to be established in such a way that they can continuallylearn from each other and use the sharing of information toenhance their own knowledge system. In this way a virtuouscycle of learning can develop that relies on the local adoptionof information received into a specific contextual knowledgesystem and integrated to produce results that can be sharedwith other partners.

In the context of information management and delivery, thisapproach could help to reduce the ‘one-way’ flow ofinformation from a scientific, information-rich core to a remoteinformation poor community. In its place, dynamic informationsharing partnerships can be developed through a constant ‘two-way’ flow of information between knowledge systems at everylevel. Every knowledge system is then seen as informationrich and through participation in knowledge partnershipscommunities can decide for themselves what information isrelevant to their context and needs. The choices thatcommunities make may themselves be of interest to otherpartners such as researchers, and this information forms partof the ‘two-way’ flow.

In order to avoid top-down, one-way informationinterventions the design process should include a number ofquestions to be answered such as those in Box 13. This aimsto prevent projects being pigeon-holed according to thespecific catalyst for the intervention that may in time becomeirrelevant. The process should allow for greater flexibility andgreater responsiveness to changes and lessons learned duringthe information initiative. Partners and collaborators can alsoexpress their needs and capabilities. This can improve thesupport given to community knowledge shar ing andtechnology transfer as an explicit investment with additionalresources allocated to networking activities such as newsletters,information bulletins for notice boards and local radio,agricultural fairs, group discussions and workshops. Knowledgesharing venues such as markets and agricultural fairs that canbe serviced by polyvalent personnel should be identified. TheAgricultural Liaison Officer (ALO) network in the SouthPacific, for example, provides trained ALOs as ‘one maninformation departments’ linking together the different piecesof the agricultural information system such as researchinstitutions, extension agencies, ministries of agriculture,NGOs, farmers, universities, international research agenciesand radio stations. ALOs perform a range of functions thatcan support community knowledge partnerships, from librarianand information officer to radio programme producer,newsletter editor, trainer and extension worker. They are

generalists acting as intermediaries who can also identify andcall on appropriate specialists to provide more specialisedassistance (Mundy and Sultan, 2001). Trained intermediariesare essential to assist organisations from all sectors developpartnerships to improve the dissemination of information andshare expertise.

Box 13: Considerations for inclusive, partneroriented information systems

What information is needed?� Government department, sector specific� Local government, community or group specific� User focused, relevance and reliabilityWhat approaches/methods of implementation areappropriate?� Multisectoral/sectoral� Livelihoods, participatory, empowerment� Capacity building, local ownershipWhat are the appropriate institutions?� International agencies, Government, private sector,

research, extension, NGOs, Community groups �farmers� organisations

What information and communication technologiesare appropriate:� How will it be used? Identify skills and language

requirements� Why will it be used? In support of livelihoods,

communication with suppliers, clients, markets, socialnetworks, knowledge transfer and training.

33

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

Information can support sustainable livelihoods in a numberof ways. The multiple uses for information correspond to thediverse needs of different users, their assets and theiropportunities. To address this array of information needs apluralistic approach is necessary to enable a wide range offlexible and targeted methods for promoting informationtransfer between relevant groups. The set of seven key issueshelps to identify the range of priorities and concerns thatshould be considered when attempting to use informationstrategically for development purposes. Initially, however, thesediverse information needs have to be understood in relationto each other and the design of any new informationintervention must relate directly to the existing informationinfrastructure, both physical and institutional. There is noblueprint for how many stakeholder groups should be includedin a differentiated information needs assessment but it is clearthat information interventions must be flexible enough in theirdesign to allow for a high degree of local diversity. This requiresa decentralised approach to be applied either to the informationsystem as a whole or at least to the way information is sharedlocally.

Information costs need to be considered in the context ofneoliberal economic structures and weighed against thebenefits of achieving development goals and promotinginformation equity. The cost question for informationinterventions is therefore not simply ‘who can pay how muchfor what information?’ but ‘what information should beprovided and at what price?’ This focuses on information needsand whilst not ignoring the need to define costs, informationcannot be provided solely on the basis of an ability to pay. Thecost implications of any information intervention can be greatlyalleviated by improved information sharing and using existingpublic information more efficiently. The sustainability ofinformation systems does not simply rely on the level offunding or subsidy, but the extent to which information canbe integrated into different systems and shared between them.Sustainability, therefore, is not only related to cost recovery ,asmuch of the information that is needed can come from publicinformation sources that are free to the user and are publiclyfunded. It is often the equipment and the physical infrastructurethat costs more than the actual information, such as in thecase of new information and communication technologies.Without further experimentation with emerging technologiesand the information sources they can provide, it is unlikelythat the true nature of their sustainability in terms of supportingdeveloping country information systems can realistically beassessed.

The notion of combining mass media, electronic and localinformation systems to overcome well established gaps ininformation and communication provision presents anunparalleled opportunity. The opportunity lies in being ableto increase the number of people who are able to access theinformation they require for their livelihoods which could

then empower them to be a greater force for change in theirown lives. The democratic principles of personal freedom andequality of opportunity are directly related to open access toinformation, and as people become aware of their rights toaccess information they are more likely to pressurise thegovernment to provide the services they need. This canenhance both the sense of responsibility within governmentand the sense of community amongst groups who are able tocoordinate their demands collectively. Informationinterventions need to address these opportunities positivelyand encourage two-way information flows that can worktowards the development of improved institutional structures.

Information relies on both its content and context for itsmeaning and relevance. Many different groups with essentiallysimilar information requirements experience diverse micro-environments that are only relevant to relatively few. Languageand dialect are easily identifiable and yet are all too oftenignored. Other socio-cultural factors can transcend languagegroups within some regions or may be specific to a tiny groupof communities elsewhere. Information can be shared betweengroups on a wide scale and a vast amount of informationcurrently available is relevant to the majority of people.However, there is no way that this information can be sharedthrough a centralised information system that ignores thecontextual diversity that applies a meaning to that information.This can only be provided through flexible and decentralisedinformation systems. It should also be a priority to ensurethat information is made available locally where it is collected,even when a centralised system is necessary, such as for regionalplanning purposes. The integration of formal and centralisedinformation systems with local, flexible and decentralisedinformation systems offers real potential to build on all theexisting networks and systems to improve the flow ofinformation and its applicability to people’s livelihoods.

Information interventions are increasingly related conceptuallyto the use of new technologies. This reflects both the perceivedpotential of new ICTs and the scale of the problem ofaddressing development goals through use of informationresources. The technologies exist to provide large scale distanceeducation programmes, health campaigns and disease awarenesssuch as to combat HIV/Aids. Adult education, technical skillsin agricultural production, processing and marketing, financialtraining, and government services can all be provided tomillions of the poorest individuals through improvedinformation systems. However, the technologies available todaycan still only provide a means for information transfer andcommunication, albeit on a much larger scale than ever before.The benefits of improved information and communicationwill only be felt by those who learn how to use it. Thetechnologies must be embraced for their ability to address thedisparities in information provision on the scale that is required,but this should be coupled with a corresponding focus oncapacity building. Individuals need capacity building not simply

6. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

34


in using new technological equipment but in using and sharinginformation in a way that supports their livelihoods.

The opportunity for decentralised information networkingto develop local solutions to development problems stems fromthe potential for increased partnerships. Innovative partnershipscan develop around common objectives and information canbe exchanged between individuals and groups that share these.Partnerships based on information sharing and communicationcan help to transcend more formal institutional barriers tochange. Partnerships can help to develop a wide range of newsocial, economic and political networks that can representalternative opportunities to individuals according to theirlivelihoods. Information sharing therefore represents a catalystthat releases opportunities to individuals and groups.Partnerships can be developed to harness these opportunitiesfor short term and mutual benefits or for longer term societaland developmental change.

6.2 Recommendations for policy action

1. Build on existing systems• Identify information infrastructure that can be built on using

existing institutions and resources.• Encourage multi-disciplinary knowledge sharing and

information exchange to develop agricultural informationsystems that correspond with cross-sectoral ruraldevelopment strategies.

• Build on existing systems to develop more decentralisedinformation management and exchange.

• Explore new mechanisms to increase availability of theInternet in rural areas, through partnerships withgovernment and private sector companies.

• Develop new ways of building on existing agriculturalinformation systems rather than creating new ones.

• Promote the integration of Internet, ICT and traditionalinformation systems within the new pluralistic approachesto agricultural extension.

• Develop approaches to help the process of introducing newinformation systems in government.

• Develop methods for making external information sourcescompatible with the requirements of existing systems, ratherthan the other way around.

• Support the information systems that farmers currently relyon especially endogenous information, through continuedefforts to shift the extension process towards a facilitatoryand advisory focus.

2. Determine who should pay• Develop a consensus on who should pay for information

provision for poorer farmers and who has a role in providingfree information as a public good.

• Develop tools to gather empirical evidence to ascertainthe benefit of improved information, especially for poorerfarmers.

• Develop tools to assess the social and political costs of moreparticipatory information systems, and approaches toovercoming them.

• Promote the information components of agriculturalprogrammes as essential elements for their long-termsustainability.

• Promote impact assessments for agricultural informationprogrammes and information components in all ruraldevelopment projects, with the aim of ensuring that theybecome an integral part of the planning and implementationcycle.

• Explore options for and promote new partnerships betweengovernment agricultural information services and theprivate sector which can benefit poor farmers.

3. Ensure equitable access• Identify and target the most marginalised groups to ensure

equal access to existing information.• Promote more reasonable time-scales in project design –

most communication and information programmes have avery short time-frame.

• Governments and multilateral organisations, such as theFAO, can use their own information systems to demonstratehow new technologies and approaches can be used to makepublic information more accessible (e.g. bridging Internet-based and traditional media in rural radio).

• Current experiences of sharing agricultural informationneed to be harnessed through improved networking andpartnerships.

• Farmers need to be empowered to ask for the informationthey need and therefore FAO and others need to supportthe provision of ‘Question and Answer’ material and services.

4. Promote local content• Micro and macro level information needs to be linked to

enable better information flows between policy-makers andlocal level users, such as farmers, resulting in the availabilityof more appropriate information sources for decision-makers at different levels.

• Promote information as a catalyst for community initiativesand adoption of technologies within decentralised andlocally owned processes.

• Capacity-building programmes for micro-level informationmanagers should be designed to be flexible and responsiveto the local context in which information is used andgenerated.

• Develop new systems to manage the integration of externaland local information.

• Develop new mechanisms to link ICTs with traditionalface-to-face communication.

5. Build capacity• Support national government capacity building through

the provision of training packages and informationmanagement resources.

• Promote standards for information management withininternational policy processes and share the experience ofinformation strategy making between governments.

• Develop standards for information systems that promoteSL approaches.

• Promote local capacity in information collection, storageand dissemination, including using innovative formats forthe target audience based on the local cultural context.

• Develop appropriate training materials for field-level,national and regional organisations.

• Improve local institutional capacity to choose from a rangeof information sources.

35

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

6. Use realistic technologies• Develop models for realistic approaches to information

technology that can be used more widely according to thescale of the infrastructure and resources available.

• Provide a forum for discussing and evaluating internationalexperiences that contributes to lesson-learning within FAOand other institutions.

• Advocate the use of realistic approaches based on a fullunderstanding of the extent of telecommunications andIT infrastructure deficiencies.

• Use innovative project experience, such as linking old andnew media to develop rural development strategies thatintegrate technologies with development objectives.

• Develop tools for participatory evaluation of SL-focusedinformation approaches and projects.

7. Build knowledge partnerships• Ensure that existing vertical and centralised networks are

serving multiple-levels and target beneficiaries as intendedby addressing the gaps and constraints.

• Encourage more pluralistic and decentralised networkingthat involves greater participation and two-way informationtransfer.

• Develop innovative partnerships where possible toencourage decentralised information management andknowledge transfer using new technologies whereappropriate.

• Promote community knowledge partnerships by assistingcommunities to share information with a range of partnersthrough targeted knowledge sharing venues and trainedintermediaries.

36


Arunachalam, S. (1999) ‘Information and Knowledge in theAge of Electronic Communication: A Developing CountryPerspective’. Journal of Information Science, 25(6): 465–476,1999.

Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessonsfrom early experience. London: Department for InternationalDevelopment.

Ashley, S. (2000) Pro-poor Livestock Development. Paper preparedfor Livelihoods Connect Website. UK: In-Development Ltd.

*Ballantyne, P., Labelle, R. and Rudgard, S. (2000) Informationand Knowledge Management: Challenges for Capacity Builders,Policy Management Brief 11. The Netherlands: EuropeanCentre for Development Policy Management.

Bebbington, A. and Thiele, G. (1993) Non-GovernmentalOrganisation and the State in Latin America. Rethinking roles insustainable agricultural development. London: Routledge.

*Berdegué, J. and Escobar, G. (2001) Agricultural knowledge andInformation Systems and Poverty Reduction. Discussion Paper.Washington: World Bank.

Berdegué, J. and Escobar, G. (2002) ‘Rural diversity, agriculturalinnovation policies and poverty reduction’. AgriculturalResearch and Extension Network Paper 122. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Berners-Lee, T. (1999) Weaving the web. San Francisco: Harper.Blench, R. (1998) ‘The introduction and spread of New World

crops in Nigeria: a historical and linguistic investigation’ inChastenet, M. (1998) Plantes et paysages d’Afrique. Une histoirea explorer. Paris: Karthala.

*Bridges.org (2001) Spanning the Digital Divide: Understandingand Tackling the Issues. Durbanville/Washington: Bridges.org.

Burke, A. (1999) ‘Communications and Development: APractical Guide’. Social Development Division Guidance SeriesFactsheet. London: Social Development Division,Department for International Development.

*Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinow, T., Neefjes, K., Wanmali,S. and Singh, N. (1999) Livelihoods approaches compared: Abrief comparison of the livelihoods approaches of the UKDepartment for International Development (DFID), CARE,Oxfam and the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP). London: Depar tment for InternationalDevelopment.

Carter, I. (1999) Locally generated printed materials in agriculture:Experience from Uganda and Ghana. Department forInternational Development, London.

Chapman, J. (2001) ‘Joint analytical study of the application ofsustainable livelihood approaches in the FAO SpecialProgramme on Food Security’. Rome desk study January2001. Oxford, UK: Oxford Policy Management.

Chambers, R. (1994) ‘Knowledge and power: All powerdeceives in Knowledge is power? The use and abuse ofinformation in development’. IDS bulletin 25(2) April 1994.Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Chapman, R. and Slaymaker, T. (2002) ‘ICTs and RuralDevelopment: Review of the Literature, CurrentInterventions and Opportunities for Action’. ODI WorkingPaper 192. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Chapman, R., Blench, R., Kranjac-Berisavljevic’, G. andZakariah, A.B.T. (2003) ‘Rural radio in agriculturalextension; the example of vernacular radio programmeson soil and water conservation in N.Ghana’, AgriculturalResearch and Extension Network Paper 127. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Chapman, R. and Tripp, R. (2003) ‘Changing Incentives forAgricultural Extension: A Review of Privatised Extensionin Practice’, Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper132. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Christoplos, I., Farrington, J. and Kidd, A. (2001) ‘Extension,Poverty and Vulnerability. Inception Report of a Study forthe Neuchâtel Initiative’, ODI Working Paper 144. London:Overseas Development Institute.

Christoplos, I., Farrington, J. and Kidd, A. (2002) ‘Extension,Poverty and Vulnerability: The Scope for Policy Reform.Final Report of a study for the Neuchâtel Initiative’, ODIWorking Paper 155. London: Overseas Development Institute.

*Coldevin, G. (2000) Participatory Communication and AdultLearning for Rural Development. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.

Crede, A. and Mansell, R. (1998) The importance for sustainabledevelopment: ICTs in Developing Countries. The Hague:International Institute for Communication and Development.

CTA (2001) ICT Update Wireless: A help line for agriculturaldevelopment? Issue 4 June 2001. A current awareness bulletinfor ACP agriculture. Wageningen, Netherlands: TechnicalCentre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation.

*Dagron, A. (2001) Making Waves: Stories of participatoryCommunication for Social Change. New York: RockefellerFoundation.

Davies, S. (1994) ‘Information, knowledge and power inKnowledge is power? The use and abuse of information indevelopment’, IDS Bulletin 25(2) April 1994. Brighton:Institute of Development Studies.

DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, Section 2The Livelihoods Framework. London: Department forInternational Development.

DFID (2000) Eliminating World Poverty: Making GlobalisationWork for the Poor, White Paper on International Development.London: Department for International Development.

DFID (2001a) The challenge of universal primary education.Strategies for achieving the international development targets.London: Department for International Development.

DFID (2001b) ‘The media in governance. A Guide toAssistance: developing free and effective media to serve theinterests of the poor’. Issues series. London: Department forInternational Development.

DFID (2002) The Significance of information and communicationtechnologies for reducing poverty.. London: Unit for PolicyStudies, Development Policy Department, Department forInternational Development.

Dixon, J., Hall, M., Hardaker, J. and Vyas, V. (1994) Farm andCommunity information use for agricultural programmesand policies. FAO Farm Systems Management Series. Rome:Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

References

Short summaries of the documents marked * are provided in Appendix 1

37

References

DOTForce (2001) ‘Global Bridges, Digital Opportunities’.Draft report of the DOTForce consultations, April 2001.

Ernberg, J. (1998) Multipurpose Community Telecentres: a businesscase? Geneva: International Telecommunications Union.

Escobar, A (1995) Encountering development: The making andunmaking of the third world. New Jersey: Princeton UniversityPress.

FAO (1996) State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome:Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (1998) The first mile of connectivity. Advancingtelecommunications for rural development through a participatorycommunication approach. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.

*FAO (1999a) The Strategic Framework for FAO 2000–2015.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations.

FAO (1999b) Communication for Development Report 1996–1997. Communication for Development Group; Extension,Education and Communication Service; Research,Extension and Training Division; Sustainable DevelopmentDepartment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.

FAO (2000a) WAICENT Outreach Programme – Outline Strategy.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations.

FAO (2000b) FAOs Corporate Communication Policy and Strategy.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations.

FAO (2000c) Fisheries Department Information Strategy: SupportingInformed Decisions and Actions. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.

FAO (2000d) ‘Inter-agency Experiences and Lessons: fromthe forum on operationalising sustainable livelihoodsapproaches’. Proceedings of forum, Pontignano, 7–11 March2000. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations and Department of International Development-UK.

*FAO (2000e) Report of the First Consultation on AgriculturalInformation Management, Rome 5–7 June 2000. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

FAO (2000f) ‘Guidelines for National FIVIMS, Backgroundand principles’, IAWG Guidelines Series 1. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

FAO (2001a) Evaluation of FAOs Policy Assistance (Cooperationwith Member Countries in the Development of National Policies(1994–99) with particular attention to FAO-TCP). FAOProgramme Committee, Eighty-fifth Session, Rome 7–11thMay 2001. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation ofthe United Nations.

FAO (2001b) ‘Report on the development of FIVIMS to the27th session of the Committe on World Food Security’,Inter-Agency Working Group 5/6. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

*FAO/CTA (2001) International Workshop on Farm RadioBroadcasting. Rome, 19–22 February 2001. Information andCommunication Technologies Servicing Farm Radio: NewContents, New Partnerships. Final Report. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

*FAO/PAIA (2001) A Spatial Information Management andDissemination Strategy, ‘GEO-NETWORK’ A Report of theSub-Working Group of the PAIA on Spatial DataManagement. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisationof the United Nations.

*FAO/WAICENT/SDR (2000a) FarmNet – FarmerInformation Network for Agricultural and Rural Development.Research, Extension and Training Division (SDR),WAICENT. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation ofthe United Nations.

*FAO/WAICENT/SDR (2000b) VERCON – VirtualExtension, Research and Communication Network. Research,Extension and Training Division (SDR), WAICENT. Rome:Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

*FAO/World Bank (2000) Agricultural knowledge and InformationSystems for Rural Development: Strategic Vision and GuidingPrinciples. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of theUnited Nations.

Fardon, R. and Furniss, G. (eds.) (2000) African BroadcastCultures: Radio in Transition. Harare: James Currey Ltd,Baobab Publishing.

Farrington, J. (2001) ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Rights and theNew Architecture of Aid’ Natural Resources Perspectives 69,June 2001. London: Overseas Development Institute.

*Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. and Turton, C. (1999)‘Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice: Early Applications ofConcepts in Rural Areas’. Natural Resource Perspectives 42,June 1999. London: Overseas Development Institute.

*Farrington, J., Chapman, R. and Slaymaker, T. (2001)Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches in Practice: Potentials andConstraints. Paper prepared for the SIDA Poverty Workshop,8 May 2001. London: Overseas Development Institute.

*Fraser, C. and Villet, J. (1994) Communication – a key to humandevelopment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation ofthe United Nations.

Gilling, J., Jones, S. and Duncan, A. (2001) Sector Approaches,Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction.Development Policy Review 19 (3): 303–319. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Gills, B. and Rocamora, J. (1992) Low Intensity Democracy.Third World Quarterly 13(3):501-527. Carfax Publishing,Abingdon.

*Girard, B. (2001) The Challenges of ICTs and Rural Radio. Paperpresented at the First International Workshop on FarmRadio Broadcasting, 19–22 February 2001. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

*Goldman, I. (2000) Micro to Macro: Policies and Institutions forEmpowering the Rural Poor. Paper prepared for the LivelihoodsConnect Website. Bloemfontein, South Africa: Khanya.

*Gomez, R., Hunt, P. and Lamoureux, E. (1999) TelecentreEvaluation and Research: A global perspective. Report of anInternational Meeting on Telecentre Evaluation September28–30th 1999. Canada: International DevelopmentResearch Centre.

*Grace, J., Kenny, C. and Qiang, C. (2001) ‘Information andCommunication Technologies and Broad-BasedDevelopment: A Partial Review of the Evidence’. Draftpaper prepared for the World Bank.

*Gurstein, M. (2001) Rural Development and Food Security: a‘Community Informatics’ Based Conceptual Framework. Paperprepared for COAIM expert workshop on the role of ICTsin rural development and food security. June 2000. Rome:Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

*Heeks, R. (1998) ‘Information Age Reform of the Public Sector:The Potential and Problems of IT for India’, Information Systemsfor Public Sector Management Working Paper 6. Manchester:Institute for Development Policy and Management.

38


*Heeks, R. (1999) ‘Information and CommunicationTechnologies, Poverty and Development’, DevelopmentInformatics Working Paper 5. Manchester: Institute forDevelopment Policy and Management.

*Heeks, R. and Baark, E. (1998) ‘Evaluation of Donor-fundedInformation Technology Transfer Projects in China: ALifecycle Approach’, Development Informatics Working Paper1. Manchester: Institute for Development Policy andManagement.

*Hilliard, R.L. (2001) Farm and Rural Radio: Some Beginningsand Models. Paper presented at the First InternationalWorkshop on Farm Radio Broadcasting, 19–22 February2001. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of theUnited Nations.

Hoffmann, V., Lamers, J. and Kidd, A.D. (2000) ‘Reformingthe Organisation of Agricultural Extension in Germany:Lessons for Other Countries’, Agricultural Research andExtension Network Paper 98, January 2000. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

*Hussein, K. (2000) Farmers’ Organisations and AgriculturalTechnology: Institutions that give farmers a voice. Paper draftedfor livelihoods connect website www.livelihoods.org.London: Overseas Development Institute.

Hussein, K. with contributions from the agencies studied(2002) Livelihoods Approaches Compared: A Multi-AgencyReview of Current Practice. London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute and Department for International Development.

IFAD (2001) Rural Poverty Report 2001: The Challenge of EndingRural Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press forInternational Fund for Agricultural Development.

Ilboudo, J-P. (2000) ‘Prospects for rural radio in Africa’ inFardon, R. and Furniss, G. (2000) African broadcast cultures.Radio in transition. Oxford: James Currey.

ISG and TDG (2000) Internet Use and Diagnostic Study – EastAfrica (supporting innovation in the provision of agricultural supportservices through Linked Local Learning). A collaborative projectof the International Support Group, Netherlands andTeleCommons Development Group, Canada.

Jafri, A., Dongre, A., Tripathi, V., Aggrawal, A., Shrivastava, S.(2002) ‘Information Communication Technologies andGovernance: The Gyandoot Experiment in Dhar Districtof Madhya Pradesh, India’ ODI Working Paper 160. London:Overseas Development Institute.

Jensen, M. (2003) ‘ICT in Africa: A Status Report’ in Dutta, S.,Lanvin, B. and Paua, F (eds.) The Global Information TechnologyReport 2002-2003: Readiness for the Networked World. Oxford:Oxford University Press for World Economic Forum.

Jurich, S. (1999) ‘The impact of Video Technology in Education:From here to where?’ Techknowlogia 1(1) September 1999.

Katz, E. with contributions from Barandun, A. (2002) InnovativeApproaches to Financing Extension for agriculture and naturalresource management. Conceptual considerations and analysis ofexperience. Lindau, Switzerland: LBL Swiss Center forAgricultural Extension.

*Kenny, C., Navas-Sabater, J. and Qiang, C.Z. (2000) ‘ICTsand Poverty’, World Bank Poverty Reduction StrategySourcebook. Draft for Comments. August 29, 2000.Washington DC: World Bank.

Koch, R. (1998) The Third Revolution. Oxford: Capstone.Krantz, L. (2001) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to poverty

reduction: An introduction. Stockholm: Sida, Division for Policyand Socio-Economic Analysis.

Latchem, C. and Walker, D. (2001) Telecentres: Case studies andkey issues. Perspectives in Distance education. Vancouver, Canada:Commonwealth of Learning.

*McConnell, S., Richardson, D., Doehler, M., and Wong, W.(2001) Telecentres Around the World: Issues to be considered andlessons learned. Canada: TeleCommons Development Groupand GAIA Corporation.

Menou, M. (1999) ‘Information and development’, in TechnicalCentre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Assessing the impactof information and communication management on institutionalperformance. Proceedings of a CTA workshop, Wageningen,27–29 January 1998. Wageningen, The Netherlands:Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation.

*Michiels, S.I. and Van Crowder, L. (2001) Discovering the ‘MagicBox’: Local Appropriation of Information and CommunicationTechnologies (ICTs). Rome: Food and Agr icultureOrganisation of the United Nations, Communication forDevelopment Group, Extension, Education andCommunication Service.

Moetsabi, T. (1998) ‘Participatory approaches for promotingrural connectivity: an exploration of issues’ in Richardson,D. and Paisley, L. (eds.) The first mile of connectivity: Advancingtelecommunications for rural development through a participatorycommunication approach. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the United Nations.

Moser, C. and Norton, A. with Conway, T., Ferguson, C. andVizard, P. (2001) To Claim our Rights: Livelihood Security,Human Rights and Sustainable Development. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

*Mundy, P. and Sultan, J. (2001) Information Revolutions: Howinformation and communication management is changing the livesof rural people. Wageningen, Netherlands: Technical Centrefor Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (ACP-EC) (CTA).

*Munyua, H. (2000) Information and Communication Technologiesfor Rural Development and Food Security: Lessons from FieldExperiences in Developing Countries. Paper prepared forCOAIM expert workshop on the role of ICTs in ruraldevelopment and food security. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Mytton, G. (2000) ‘From saucepan to dish: Radio and TV inAfrica’ in Fardon, R. and Furniss, G. (2000) African broadcastcultures: Radio in transition. Oxford: James Currey.

Negroponte, N. (1995) Being digital. New York: Vintage books.*Nelson, J. and Farrington, J. (1994) Information Exchange

Networking for Agricultural Development: A Review of Conceptsand Practices. Wageningen, Netherlands: Technical Centrefor Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).

Neuchâtel Group (1999) Common Framework on AgriculturalExtension, Paris: Neuchâtel Group.

Norrish, P. (1998) ‘Radio and video for development’ inRichardson, D. and Paisley, L. (eds.) (1998) The first mile ofconnectivity: Advancing telecommunications for rural developmentthrough a participatory communication approach. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Norton, A. and Foster, M. (2001) The potential of using SustainableLivelihoods approaches in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.Paper commissioned by DFID. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

*O’Farrell, C., Norrish, P. and Scott, A. (1999) Information andCommunication Technologies for Sustainable Livelihoods. BriefingDocument. UK: AERDD and Intermediate TechnologyPublishing.

39

References

OECD (2001) Understanding the digital divide. Par is:Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment.

*Pasteur, K. (2001a) ‘Tools for Sustainable Livelihoods:Livelihoods Monitoring and Evaluation’, Draft forComment posted on livelihoods connect website. Brighton:Institute of Development Studies.

Pasteur, K. (2001b) Changing Organisations for SustainableLivelihoods: a map to guide change. Brighton: Institute forDevelopment Studies.

*Pauli, G. (1999) Towards a Technology Strategy for SustainableLivelihoods. Prepared for the Sustainable Livelihoods Unitof the UNDP. United Nations Development Programme.

*Richardson, D. (1997) The Internet and Rural and AgriculturalDevelopment: An Integrated Approach. Paper prepared for theFAO. Ontario, Canada: TeleCommons Development Group.

*Richardson, D. (1999) The Virtual Research and ExtensionCommunication Network: An Interactive Learning andCommunication Network for Research and Extension Personnel.Concept paper prepared for FAO. Guelph, Canada:TeleCommons Development Group.

*Richardson, D. (2001) The Practical Reality of KnowledgeManagement within Development Initiative. Paper prepared forIFAD’s Electronic Networking for Rural Asia/PacificProjects (ENRAP) 2nd Comprehensive Workshop.Singapore, February 6–9, 2001. Guelph, Canada:TeleCommons Development Group.

*Richardson, D. and Paisley, L. (eds.) The first mile of connectivity:Advancing telecommunications for rural development through aparticipatory communication approach. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

*Rivera, W. (2001) Agricultural and Rural Extension Worldwide:Options for Institutional Reform in the Developing Countries.Rome: Extension, Education and Communication Service,Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Roling, N. (1988) Extension Science. Information systems inagricultural development. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

*Roling, N. (1995) ‘What to think of extension? A Comparisonof Three Models of Extension Practice’. Agricultural Extensionand Rural Development Department Bulletin (Francophoneissue edited by Nour idin Salamna). Montpellier :International Centre for development oriented Researchin Agriculture.

Scott-Goldman, J. (2001) Literacy Programmes and SustainableLivelihoods. London: Department for InternationalDevelopment.

*Shankland, A. (2000) ‘Analysing Policy for SustainableLivelihoods’, IDS Research Report 49. September 2000.Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

*Siochrú, S. (2001) From Knowledge Management to KnowledgeEmpowerment. Paper produced as part of the IFAD/ENRAPProject (Electronic Networking for Rural Asia PacificProject) January 2001. Dublin: Nexus.

Skuse, A. (2000) Information Communication Technologies, Povertyand Empowerment. London: Social DevelopmentDepartment, Department for International Development.

Starkey, P. (1997) Networking for development. London:International Forum for Rural Transport and Development.

Sutton, R. (1999) ‘The policy process: An overview’, ODIWorking Paper 118. London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute.

*TeleCommons Development Group (2000a) Rural Access toInformation and Communication Technologies: The Challenge forAfr ica . Final Report prepared by TeleCommonsDevelopment Group for the Afr ican ConnectionSecretar iat, with support from the Information forDevelopment Program (InfoDEV). Washington DC:IBRD/World Bank.

*TeleCommons Development Group (2000b) Internet Use andDiagnostic Study – East Africa. Supporting innovation in theprovision of agricultural support services through Local LinkedLearning. Canada: TeleCommons Development Group.

TechKnowLogia (1999) International Journal of Technologies forthe Advancement of Knowledge and Learning Volume 1,Introductory Issue 1, September/October 1999.

*Thomson, A.M. (2000) Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches atPolicy Level. Paper prepared for FAO e-conference andForum on Operationalising Participatory Ways of Applyinga Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Time (2000) ‘A Great Leap. Business: World Economic Forum’.January 31st 2000: 42–46. Time Inc.

Tripp, R. (2001) Seed Provision and Agricultural Development.The Institutions of Rural Change. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

*UNDP (2001) Human Development Report 2001. MakingTechnologies Work for Human Development. New York andOxford: Oxford University Press for United NationsDevelopment Programme.

*Warren, P. (2001) Survey at-a-distance on Assessment ofStakeholder Participation in FAO Field Programme. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

*World Bank (1999) Knowledge for Development: WorldDevelopment Report 1998–99. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

*Zjip, W. (1994) ‘Improving the Transfer and Use of AgriculturalInformation: A Guide to Information Technology’, WorldBank Discussion Paper 247. Washington DC: The World Bank.


40

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

Ballantyne, P., Labelle, R. and Rudgard, S.(2000) Information and KnowledgeManagement: Challenges for Capacity Builders

Information and communication technologies for many peoplerepresent an opportunity to address the challenges ofdevelopment and help to reduce poverty by a combination ofwealth and job creation, delivering better services, and buildingcapacity within government and community organisations.The effect on poverty alleviation, however, is dependent onICTs being used according to local needs and circumstances.In order for local needs to be effectively expressed andmanaged, the skills and capacities of both individuals andinstitutions need to be developed to build on the potentialbenefits of improved information and knowledge transfer. Useof ICTs is limited by a lack of awareness and skills, training,and capital resources to purchase and maintain equipment.Use of the Internet is constrained further in many developingcountries by the low provision of appropriate content, bothin terms of language and subject matter. Barriers to access canbe identified at all levels, from the international and nationalpolicy context to local technical capacity, and therefore needto be addressed through partnerships that include a wide rangeof actors, from politicians to the private sector, NGOs andcommunity organisations. This paper sets out a number ofprinciples for effective partnerships and the role of capacitybuilding in the modern information context. The managementof information is an increasing challenge as, unlike othercommodities, information multiplies when it is shared.

Information exchange and knowledge sharing represent thekey components of effective partnerships and collaboration,and as such they need to be developed at every level fromnew relationships between donors and recipients to more localownership of the development process. Effective partnershipswill also be those that give priority to local capacities and,where external technologies are necessary, reduce the ‘costs’through the use of open standards that do not require constantupgrading and license fees. Capacity builders must alsorecognise their end goal is to exit the partnership arrangementwith a strategy in place for the other partners to continue toenjoy the benefits of the intervention. If long-term capacitybuilding is required, then a process of reviews should be usedto monitor the effectiveness of the partnership.

Some key questions are also raised to help promote andmonitor capacity building activities including:• Whose capacities are being built? Decision-makers;

champions; information custodians and producers; ultimatebeneficiaries.

• What capacities are being built? Awareness andempowerment; skills; resources.

• How are capacities being built? Partnership; collaboration;appropriate methods.

Appendix 1: Document Summaries

The paper also concludes that complimentarity flows fromattitudes, cultures and the extent that people and organisationsare willing to cooperate. Cooperation and partnership do notalways flow of their own accord. Funding agencies need to becreative and use incentives where appropriate to fosterpartnerships which may involve building their own capacityand addressing specific issues and problems.

Berdegué, J. and Escobar, G. (2001) AgriculturalKnowledge and Information Systems andPoverty Reduction

This discussion paper builds on the AKIS concept originallycoined by Roling and developed by the FAO and the WorldBank over the past decade. The essential approach that theAKIS concept takes is that agricultural research and extensionare necessary but not sufficient in themselves to generatetechnological change that relies on a more complete set ofinnovation-oriented institutional arrangements. It introducesmore dynamic information flows into the concept ofagricultural technological advancement, including two-wayinformation flows between farmers and extension services,and between farmers and agricultural research centres.Innovation, therefore, must be assumed to come from thoseinstitutions that foster innovative practices at any level, notsimply at the level of research centres. In order to assess thepoverty alleviating impact and potential of an AKIS, the paperargues that programme design should acknowledge both thedirect and the indirect impact, including the diffusion ofinnovations outside the scope of a particular project. Theindirect effects, including the diffusion of innovations morewidely than the first level of beneficiaries, have greater potentialfor addressing the global magnitude of poverty. An appreciationof the multidimensional aspects of poverty is required in orderto understand the potential impact of both direct and indirecteffects of agricultural innovation on poverty.

Berdegué and Escobar argue that poor farmers can be largelyalienated from the direct effects of agricultural technologicalinnovation. In many cases this is because they have less accessto information and resources in the first instance, and are alsoless able to compete with more efficient farmers who maybenefit from more favourable production environments, bettertechnologies and more conducive policy and institutionalincentives. Indirect effects manifest themselves as lower foodfood prices, agricultural employment, wages and linkages withthe non-farm economy. In order to promote the povertyalleviating potential of AKIS in developing countries, thecurrent complexity of the institutional context must also beunderstood. Official research and extension agencies are nowjoined by a host of other actors, including the private sectorand NGOs, farmers organisations, religious, environmental andsocial ministries and foundations. This corresponds toincreasingly complex and diverse technologies and mechanismsfor planning, designing and delivering services.

41

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

The heterogeneity of the poverty context must be adaptedinto AKIS if agricultural innovation is to be made available toand transferred between a wider range of institutions and alarger number of beneficiaries.

Key findings of the paper include:• Poverty is multi-dimensional and is a highly heterogeneous

phenomenon. Failure to recognise this fact has led to asuccession of fads of simplistic ‘one size fits all’ approaches.It is time we learn to deal with diversity by means ofcustomised approaches.

• Agricultural innovation is a socially constructed process.Innovation is the result of the interaction of a multitude ofagents and stakeholders. If agr icultural research andextension are important to agricultural innovation, so aremarkets, systems of government, social norms and a host offactors that create the incentives for a farmer to decide tochange the way in which he or she works, and that rewardor frustrate his or her decisions.

• When the goal is poverty reduction, agricultural innovationpolicies and programmes cannot start from agriculturalresearch and extension towards poverty. This can only leadto standardised ‘one size fits all’ solutions. The starting pointhas to be the analysis of the different types of poverty (ruraland urban), their determinants, the contexts in which theyoccur, and the livelihood strategies that the poor implementto respond to their condition. From there we can moveback to determine possible strategies for agriculturalinnovation, and only then can we look at the potential roleof agricultural research and extension within each strategy.

• The development of small scale family farms offers thegreatest potential for poverty reduction through agriculturalinnovation in developing countries.

• Agricultural innovation policies aimed at very poorhouseholds in unfavourable environments can only lead tosustainable progress in poverty reduction if they are part ofbroad-based efforts that recognise the diversified livelihoodsstrategies of those households.

Bridges.org (2001) Spanning the DigitalDivide: Understanding and Tackling the Issues

This report aims to cut through the hype and fervoursurrounding debates over ‘digital divides’ and provide anobjective overview. It presents some of the basic facts aboutICT access and use, and examines the true nature of so-calleddigital divides, both between and within countries. It describesvarious studies and approaches to the problems; outlines on-the-ground initiatives and government policies to address them;and reflects on what is working best and what is failing – andwhy. The paper then makes a number of recommendationsillustrating the key elements necessary for integratingtechnology into society in an effective, sustainable way so thatpeople can put technology to use to improve their lives: this istermed ‘real access’ to technology. An extensive list of sourcesfor further information is also provided.

A number of criteria are presented as key determining factorsin whether or not people have ‘real access’ to technology,i.e. access beyond just physical access and makes it possible forpeople to use technology effectively to improve their lives.

• Physical access: Is technology available and physicallyaccessible?

• Appropriate technology: What is the appropriate technologyaccording to local conditions, and how do people needand want to put technology to use?

• Affordability: Is technology access affordable for people touse?

• Capacity: Do people understand how to use technologyand its potential uses?

• Relevant Content: Is there locally relevant content,especially in terms of language?

• Socio-cultural factors: Are people limited in their use oftechnology based on gender, race or other socio-culturalfactors?

• Trust: Do people have confidence in and understand theimplications of the technology they use, for instance interms of privacy, security or cybercrime?

• Legal and regulatory framework: How do laws andregulations affect technology use and what changes areneeded to create an environment that fosters its use?

• Local economic environment: Is there a local economy thatcan and will sustain technology use?

• Macro-economic environment: Is national economic policyconducive to widespread technology use – for example, interms of transparency, deregulation, investment and labourissues?

• Political will: Is there political will in government to dowhat is needed to enable the integration of technologythroughout society?

The importance of policy is argued and stressed. Nationalgovernments can play a fundamental role in creating anenvironment that will foster technology use, a skilled workforceand encourage national and international investment in ICTinfrastructure development. Government action is alsoimportant in spreading the benefits of technology throughoutsociety: governments have the power and mandate to balancethe needs of their citizens for long-term economic growthand social prosperity. However policy directions must bedirected to the local context. The local context – in terms oflocal needs, skills and political issues – has a significant impacton whether generally accepted policy reforms are actuallyadopted and put into practice. Effective policies and processesmust be grounded in real life experience, in local circumstances,based on real user needs, and address the multiple issues ofreal access to ICTs.

A key conclusion is that there is a disconnect between on-the-ground efforts and policy-making processes. Both groundlevel initiatives and policy reform are necessary, and informationflow between them will make both approaches more effective.It is argued that at the macro level the digital divide reflectsfailure at three levels: a failure of development initiatives; afailure of market forces; and a failure of government. All threefailures need to be turned around if the divide is to be bridged.The report calls for a holistic approach which aims for realaccess to technology.


42

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinow, T.,Neefjes, K., Wanmali, S. and Singh, N. (1999)Livelihoods Approaches Compared: A briefcomparison of the livelihoods approaches ofthe UK Department for InternationalDevelopment, CARE, Oxfam and the UnitedNations Development Programme

This review covers the approaches of DFID, Oxfam, CAREand UNDP. Representatives of these four developmentagencies bring together the fundamental principles behindthe livelihoods approaches adopted by their differentorganisations. Concise comparisons are drawn and conclusionsmade about whether the differences between them matter.Variations in emphasis and interpretation of the sustainablelivelihoods approach are revealed between the agencies, andeach of the approaches is shown to be continuously evolving.The approaches of the four agencies also share much incommon, such as: roots in the work of Chambers and Conway;the focus on assets; the interest in macro-micro links; and thestress on flexibility of application. This analysis helps to broadenunderstanding of the SL framework and its application.

DFID stresses that there are many ways of applying livelihoodsapproaches (there is not one single approach) but that thereare six underlying principles to all these approaches. Throughuse of the framework and a variety of tools, SL analysis asks abroad range of questions about poverty and its causes. It is notbounded by sectors or existing notions of what is important.The analysis is initially broad and relatively shallow, coveringmost or all aspects of the SL framework and employing variousperspectives. As the main dimensions of livelihoods areuncovered, and the meaning and causes of poverty becomebetter understood, the analysis becomes iteratively narrowerand deeper. Participation is critical throughout, althoughexternal experts do also have a role to play.

Oxfam uses the SL approach in planning and assessment (ofprojects and wider programmes) and incorporates it as part ofits overall strategic aim. UNDP perceives the main benefit ofthe livelihoods approach to be that it approaches povertyreduction in a sustainable manner. In particular, it attempts tobridge the gap between macro policies and micro realities(and vice versa). Neither poverty reduction programmes norparticipatory development initiatives have been able to dothis. The SL approach has the additional advantage ofintegrating environmental, social and economic issues into aholistic framework for analysis and programming. This resultsin sustainability being kept to the fore and being viewedsimultaneously through environmental and socio-economiclenses.

The study concludes that in the short-term and at a conceptuallevel commonality certainly exceeds variation.

• All agencies adopt an asset-based approach. Differences inthe number of assets considered by particular agencies arenot likely to be important. Some agencies stress capabilitiesas well as assets and activities, others less so. However, thisseems to be more a case of simplifying vocabulary than ofabandoning the core ideas that lie behind the notion ofcapabilities;

• There is a somewhat different understanding of sustainabilitybetween the agencies. CARE, in particular, stresseshousehold livelihood security. If this difference is carriedthrough into practice, it could be significant (for example,the relative emphasis placed on the environment woulddiffer). However, gaining an understanding of sustainabilityand incorporating its different elements into actionprogrammes is perhaps one of the more challenging aspectsof SL approaches;

• All agencies stress a need to understand and facilitateeffective micro-macro links, and have quite strong opinionsas to the extent to which they are doing this themselvesand the extent to which other agencies are doing it. A gooddeal of the difference probably comes down to the differentmandates and scale of operation of the agencies covered inthis review. UNDP, and to a lesser extent DFID, tend tohave higher level entry points than the NGOs. Yet bothNGOs see a need to work more on macro issues in themodern development context. There is clear scope forcomplementary activity here with different agenciesbuilding on their existing strengths;

• Different agencies place a different level of stress onempowerment. Again, this may well be to do withcomparative advantage issues, rather than an actual differencein opinion as to what is important;

• UNDP is the only organisation that explicitly stressestechnology in its framework. It is not yet clear whetherthis has a specific impact on development activity. DFIDcertainly supports many technology programmes, despitethe fact that it chooses not to single out technology.

Improved awareness of differences in approach can help thesedifferences to be accommodated and future directionsidentified. It shows that a basis exists for inter-agency discussionand learning, and the promotion of in-country partnershipson livelihoods initiatives.

Coldevin, G. (2000) ParticipatoryCommunication and Adult Learning for RuralDevelopment

This article traces the development of participatory approachesin FAO’s field programmes and other agencies’ activities, whichmark the general shift away from top-down approaches inextension practice. FAO has been at the forefront of promotingparticipatory approaches as a useful way of integrating farmers,extension and research in the development process, especiallyat the planning and implementation stages. The focus of theFAO’s Communication for Development Group is to enablefarmers to access relevant information and knowledgeaccording to their needs. The group’s mandate includes bothnormative work: development of policies; strateg iesmethodologies; guidelines; best practices; and information toolsand materials; and fieldwork: project appraisal; design;implementation; monitoring and evaluation; technicalbackstopping and training; establishing partnerships andnetworks; and providing communication technology advice.

Priorities include:• Identifying communication needs in support of agricultural

and rural development;

43

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

• Effectively using communication methodologies andtechnologies with rural people;

• Developing appropriate communication policies, strategies,media approaches and messages;

• Developing and implementing communication training tobuild national capacity.

Radio has been a particular focus over the years as a massmedia tool that can provide information to adult ruralpopulations, many of whom are illiterate (44% in Africa(Population Reference Bureau, 1999)). General programmingwas criticised for attempting to reach everyone, with the resultthat it reaches no one, and there is now a clearer focus ondefining and addressing target audiences. The FAOinternational workshop on rural radio in 1996 confirmed thecontinuing role of radio: radio remains the most popular,accessible, and cost-effective means of communication for ruralpeople. Radio can overcome the barriers of distance, illiteracyand language better than any other medium. More recentlythe integration of radio and the Internet is being consideredand a pilot project in Mali to connect rural radio stations tothe Internet is being discussed.

Dagron, A. (2001) Making Waves: Stories ofParticipatory Communication for SocialChange

This study, produced by the Rockefeller Foundation, presentsa thorough review of over 50 case studies to examine theevaluation of processes of communication and social change.They highlight that while many development organisationsare now aware of the role of communication in social change,there is little documentation of concrete experiences. Theconcept of participatory communication is still not widelyemployed. In addition, there are certain cultural and academicbarriers in this field between donors, planners, governmentsand communities. The study argues that it is vital to worktowards including communication analysis as an integral partof every development project. It further observes that, ironically,the evaluation processes of communication projects are oftenless participatory and people-centred than the projectsthemselves. This is seen to be due mainly to the lack of newparticipatory approaches to evaluation appropriate for the newtechnologies. One of the next challenges will therefore be tobuild up an adequate understanding of participatory evaluationprocesses.

FAO (1999a) The Strategic Framework forFAO: 2000–2015

The full document, as approved by the FAO Conference at its30th session in November 1999, is designed to guide the FAO’swork until the year 2015. It provides the authoritativeframework for the Organization’s future programmes, whichwill be developed through successive Medium-Term Plansand Programmes of Work and Budget. It outlines theanticipated future role of the Organization in relation tocurrent and projected demographic and economic trends.

The document is divided into three sections. Section 1 ‘Overallstrategic framework’ details the r isks and opportunitiespresented, reiterates the Organization’s purpose, goals, missionand vision.

Section 2 ‘Corporate Strategies’ outlines strategies to addressmembers’ needs (under the categories below) and strategiesto address cross-organisational issues:• Contributing to the eradication of food insecurity and rural

poverty;• Promoting, developing and reinforcing policy and

regulatory frameworks for food, agriculture, fisheries andforestry;

• Creating sustainable increases in the supply and availabilityof food and other products from the crop, livestock, fisheriesand forestry sectors;

• Supporting the conservation, improvement and sustainableuse of natural resources for food and agriculture;

• Improving decision-making through the provision ofinformation and assessments, and fostering of knowledgemanagement for food and agriculture.

Section 3 ‘Implementation Programme’ outlines the planningframework, methodology and new programme model, criteriafor pr iority setting, major comparative advantages andimplementation schedule.

FAO (2000e) Report of the First Consultationon Agricultural Information Management(COAIM)

The Consultation was designed to bring policy issues relatedto management and access to agricultural information to theattention of the inter-governmental process, and establish aglobal framework for the normative work of the WAICENT.It recognises the key role that information and knowledgeplay in ensuring food security and sustainable development,and focuses on ways of improving the capacities of decision-makers, professionals and the public at large in MemberCountries to access and use agricultural information. TheConsultation covered all aspects of agricultural informationmanagement. The agenda included key topics such asmechanisms for improving access to agricultural information,improving the coordination of capacity building efforts, andissues related to guidelines and standards in informationmanagement. COAIM brought together information users andproviders, policy-makers, funding agencies, and the majorplayers in all the relevant fields of agricultural information, aswell as observers from the UN and NGO community. Inaddition to statements from FAO member delegations, theconsultation featured workshops on key aspects of the use ofICTs in agricultural development and food security, and onthe latest advances in information management systems,facilitated by specialists from the wider developmentcommunity and academia.

Proceedings of the consultation, including plenary discussions,workshop results and recommendations are summarised inthis report. Plenary discussions focused on three main topics:a) improving access to agr icultural infor mation; b)strengthening information and knowledge management


44

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

capacities through international cooperation; and c) standardsand guidelines for agricultural information management. Threeparallel workshops were held on: a) AGRIS/CARIS; b) therole of ICTs in Rural Development and Food Security; andc) Impact Assessment for Information System Development.

FAO/CTA (2001) International WorkshopReport on Farm Radio Broadcasting

This report of the Workshop on Farm Radio Broadcastingwhich brought together over 50 experts in farm and ruralradio to compare experiences in America and Africa and discussopportunities for the future. Rural radio has proved an excellentcommunication tool and new information communicationtechnologies have the potential to further enhance its impacton agricultural and rural development. The linking of ruralradio to new ICTs is one theme that is discussed in the report,along with others such as the experiences of specialistinstitutions and networks (AIF, DCFN, AMARC, PANOS/IPAO, CIERRO), the scientific research centres (CGIAR,ISNAR), and content supplied by the FAO TechnicalDepartments (GIEWS, WAICENT, etc.). The Workshop alsohelped to develop North-South collaboration and plans forpartnerships were discussed. Girard introduces the strategiccontext relating to the challenges and opportunities forbridging the digital divide which require institutions in ruralAfrica to build on their existing networks and use communityintermediaries to serve as a bridge between the Internet andrural radio. This approach is being tested in Mali by the FAOas described by Jean-Pierre Ilboudo who also highlights anumber of key subjects that should be promoted more throughAfrican rural radio – namely agrometeorological information;information on the food situation in different countries(GIEWS); information on market prices; food safety; and postharvest operations. A number of community perspectives arealso expounded, including Quarmyne’s ‘Kente’ Approach,which emphasises the relationship between community radioand the listening community. The approach stems from theparticipatory experiences of Radio Ada in Northern Ghana,in which empowerment of trainees and the listeningcommunity are taken as the goals. The ‘Kente’ approach hasfour main elements: knowing self, knowing community,knowing development and knowing media.

The report also provides summaries of the specific approachesto rural radio and activities of the workshop sponsors – FordFoundation (West Africa), CTA, UNESCO, IDRC (AcaciaInitiative) and IFAD.

The key outcomes of the workshop include:• Networks linking African rural radio broadcasters with

American farm radio broadcasters through the Internet;• Strategies to strengthen the support of rural radio in the

areas of food security and early warning systems;• Approaches to improve access to meteorological and market

information;• Strategies to link WAICENT with rural and farm radio

broadcasters;• Action plan for North-South and South-South collaboration;• Identification of country projects with the potential for

obtaining outside funding.

FAO/PAIA (2001) A Spatial InformationManagement and Dissemination Strategy,‘GEO-Network’

The Medium Term Plan for the FAO (2002–2007) includesplans for enhanced multi-disciplinary approaches as called forin the Strategic Framework (2000–2015). There are 16 PriorityAreas for Inter-disciplinary Action (PAIAs) identified withinthe corporate strategies that they relate to and two furtherthematic PAIAs. The idea for a Geo-Network was endorsedat the meeting of the Spatial Information Management PAIAin April 2001. The Geo-Network project aims to create anIntranet/Internet web-based system for integrated access to awide range of spatial data held in a number of differentcapacities across FAO. The proposed Geo-Network willprovide a common user interface and gateway to a variety ofdata, information and metadata from sources such as FAOMAP,the Geography Network, and AFRICOVER. The GEO-Network will be designed to address a number of informationrequirements of the FAO offices and other UN partners inthe longer term.

A common set of problems have been identified across thewide variety of users, such as:• Varying ability to access da ta and information• Access to singular or specific data sources• Little data integration across programmes• Scattered data management• Unfamiliarity with the technology supporting the data

access or use

The Geo-Network is therefore intended to providecomprehensive access to FAO’s spatial information and relateddatabases, including a number of key thematic databases (e.g.forest cover, crop zones (GIEWS), livestock distribution,nutrition profiles), regional and national datasets (Nile Basin,Africover etc.) and socio-economic data (poverty mapping,nutrition profiles). Key partners within FAO, such as FIVIMS,SDR and WAICENT, have been identified as the most relevantgroups to develop the Geo-Network both internally andexternally through the UN system-wide review. Partnershipswill help to provide a wider platform of support for a broadlybased mechanism, led by the spatial PAIA, which promotesspatial data and information networking concepts andimplementation. External partners, such as ESRI and UNEP,will be involved in the development and implementation. Anumber of other external organisations such as UNESCO,ICSU (International Council for Science), ISO (InternationalStandards Organisation) and other public and privateorganisations will be involved. The users in developingcountries also need to be consulted and testing of the systemshould include the different conditions and applications.

This report shows that despite the potential links betweenICTs and poverty reduction, direct access by the poor to ICTsis extremely limited. Citizens of poor countries havesignificantly less access than those living in rich countries, whilepoorer people within countries are even further excluded.Furthermore, women have even less access to ICTs. The lessonto learn however is that ICTs are not a luxury good that willremain out of the reach of most of the population, ratherICTs have important potential links to poverty reduction.

45

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

One chapter focuses on a narrow range of ICTs – primarilythe telephone and the Internet, secondarily radio and postalservices, with particular attention to strategies to overcomebarriers to access, and impact monitoring and evaluation.Finally priority areas for use of ICTs in pro-poor governmentservices are identified.

FAO/WAICENT/SDR (2000a) FarmNet –Farmer Information Network for Agriculturaland Rural Development

The FAO has applied ICTs in Latin America in a project toestablish farmer information networks – FarmNets – involvingagricultural producers and farmer associations, extensionservices and NGOs. Operated by farmers and theirorganisations, a FarmNet links farmers to each other and tothe resources and services that they need to improve theirlivelihoods through agricultural productivity, profitability andfood security. A FarmNet uses existing organisational and socialgroupings of rural people, and incorporates grass-rootscommunication networks such as farmer-to-farmer exchangesand traditional media. It combines the organisational andcommunication networks of rural people with conventionalmedia, such as rural radio, and with appropriate use of thenew ICTs.

FAO’s experience with FarmNets began in the early 1990swhere farmer electronic information networks wereestablished in Mexico and Chile. Subsequent evaluationsindicate that the impact of Farmnets has been highly significant.Essential information on inputs, prices, markets, weather andcredit are exchanged through the electronic network (via theInternet) to farmer organisations, cooperatives and localgovernment. The projects also provide training on how toanalyse, retrieve and disseminate information of local relevance,using ICTs. This has enabled local farmers to plan and markettheir produce much more successfully.

FAO/WAICENT/SDR (2000b) VERCON –Vir tual Extension, Research andCommunication Network

The VERCON concept was developed by FAO as a jointproject between the Research, Extension and Training Division(SDR) and the World Agricultural Information Centre(WAICENT). It is a prototype network that aims at improvinglinkages between and within agricultural research andextension institutions using Internet-based ICTs. The Internettool allows network members to capture and develop localcontent, share, store, retrieve and disseminate information andconnect geographically dispersed people from research andextension institutions, faculties of agricultural education, NGOworkers and agricultural producers. The tool aims to supportimproved agricultural production, and further broaden andstrengthen collaboration through facilitating coordination ofrural, local, national and regional development programmes.Functional linkages between research and extension remainunsatisfactory in many developing countries. Advances in ICTsoffer new possibilities to improve linkages. However, attentionis focused on what needs to be done by the technology, rather

than being driven by what the technology is capable of doing.There are two fully integrated and co-dependent componentsto VERCON, the human and institutional component, andthe technological component.

FAO/World Bank (2000) Agr iculturalKnowledge and Information Systems for RuralDevelopment: Strategic Vision and GuidingPrinciples

Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for RuralDevelopment (AKIS/RD) link farmers and researcherstogether through education and extension mechanisms. TheStrategic Vision and Guiding Principles prepared jointly bythe FAO and the World Bank aim to set out the challengesand opportunities for AKIS/RDs for improved institutionalcapacity building. At a local level, farmers’ capacity can beenhanced through more participatory approaches to learningsupported by appropriate research, education and extensionservices. The Strategic Vision outlines the goals for the AKIS/RD model to support the institutions at all levels, fromgovernment and the private sector to civil society and farmers,with the result of increased knowledge sharing within thesystem. New opportunities for partnerships between the publicand private sector, together with the emergence of improvedinformation and communication technologies, could be usedto transform AKIS/RDs into more effective systems forimproving the livelihoods of poor farmers. In order to achievethis transformation of AKIS/RDs into being more povertyalleviating and empowerment orientated, a strategic emphasishas been made on:• making the whole AKIS/RD financially, socially and

technically more sustainable;• improving the relevance as well as the effectiveness of the

process of knowledge and technology generation, sharingand uptake;

• making AKIS/RD more demand dr iven throughempowerment of farmers, particularly those who aremarginalised and disadvantaged, so that they mightparticipate more meaningfully in AKIS decisions andpriority setting, in order that AKIS/RD programmes wouldbe more responsive to their needs;

• increasing the interface between and integration amongthe various education, research, extension and farmingactivities;

• building accountability to assure that each stakeholderassumes his/her respective responsibilities, that performancefailures are identified and that appropriate responses aremade.

A comprehensive set of guiding principles for programmedesign are also included, such as a focus on economic efficiency,the use of pluralistic and participatory approaches, and thepromotion of results-oriented monitoring and evaluation ofall programmes.


46

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. and Turton,C. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice:Early Applications of SL Concepts

This paper outlines a new approach to poverty alleviation –sustainable livelihoods – setting out its basic concepts anddrawing lessons from early experience. Policy conclusionsoutlined in the paper are as follows:

Early experience in implementing a sustainable livelihoodsapproach suggests that it:• Helps bring together different perspectives on poverty and

integrate the contributions to eliminating that poverty thatdifferent skills and sectors can make, for instance in designingprojects and programmes, sector analysis and monitoring;

• Makes explicit the choices and possible tradeoffs in planningand executing different development activities;

• Helps to identify the underlying constraints to improvedlivelihoods and means of overcoming these;

• Helps to link improved micro-level understanding ofpoverty into policy and institutional change processes.

Practical difficulties remain in:• Understanding how conflict over access to resources

impinges on livelihood choices, and what can be done toaddress this;

• Developing cost effective modes of livelihood analysis thatensures that the needs of the poorest are prioritised;

• Identifying appropriate in-country partners, and developingcollaborative approaches to understanding the complexityof poverty, and integrating that understanding into acommon livelihoods frame;

• Understanding how, in practice, to handle tradeoffs, forinstance between local pressures (e.g. for increased short-term income or better infrastructure) and wider concernsabout resource sustainability and national-level policyconsiderations.

Farrington, J., Chapman, R. and Slaymaker, T.(2001) Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches inPractice: Potentials and Constraints

Much has been written recently about the application of SLapproaches to project and programme design andimplementation, principally in rural settings. This paper hasthree purposes:• First to provide an overview of this experience in the project

and programme context;• Second to explore the interface between SL and other

approaches to development, specifically r ights-basedapproaches;

• Third to examine how SL approaches might complementthe macro-level emphasis on policy and fiscal reform atsectoral (and wider) levels, which have been termed the‘new architecture’ of aid.

The emphasis throughout is on identifying what preconditionshave to be in place for SL approaches to succeed, and ondrawing out general lessons and constraints. The review ishampered to some extent by the low level of detail availablein some of the reports reviewed: as many observers have

suggested, the value of a SL approach lies to a large extent inthe inclusive and non-threatening process towards the designof poverty-focused interventions that it encourages, in additionto whatever improved outcomes it achieves, for example betterproject design. However, the material reviewed often has scantdetail on the process and where there is some detail, it followsdifferent patterns in different reports, and so is not easilycomparable. As noted by Krantz (2001), in some donorinterpretations of SL (including those of DFID), it can be:• A set of principles• An analytical framework (suggesting how we can best

understand poor people’s options and constraints)• A developmental objective (i.e. to enhance the overall level

and sustainability of livelihoods)

In this review, SL approach takes the developmental objectiveas given, and embraces both the principles and the framework.At several points, discussion focuses specifically on one or otherof the three above characteristics rather than on the approachin general, and the relevant characteristic is specified at thetime. SL approaches are considered in relation to five broadareas:• The design of development projects• The design and management of development programmes• Monitoring and evaluation of projects• Links with rights-based approaches to development• Links with the ‘new architecture of aid’

Fraser, C. and Villet, J. (1994) Communication– a key to development

This paper promotes the concept of communication as thekey to development. The authors note that participation isbecoming the central issue of our time and argue thatcommunication is central to effective participation.Furthermore development programmes can only realise theirfull potential if knowledge and technology are sharedeffectively, and if populations are motivated and committedto achieve success. It is recognised that unless people themselvesare the driving force of their own development, no amountof investment or provision of technology and inputs will bringabout any lasting improvements in their living standards.Communication enables beneficiaries to become the principalactors in development programmes, it empowers people at alllevels to recognise important issues, find common groundsfor action, and participate in the implementation of theirdecisions.

Increasingly the use of communication no longer depends somuch on the availability of technology, but rather on the willand decisions of policy-makers to exploit its potential. Thepotential of development communication lies in two mainareas:• Communication approaches allow better planning and

programme formulation through consultation to take intoaccount the needs, attitudes and existing knowledge ofstakeholder groups. They also improve coordination,teamwork and wider institutional support in developmentprogramme management and facilitate people’s participationand community mobilisation.

47

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

• Communication media and techniques can be powerfultools to advise people about new ideas and methods, toencourage adoption of those ideas and methods, and toimprove training overall.

The paper makes recommendations as to how to makecommunication part of a national development policy. It alsofocuses in particular on communication for better agriculturalknowledge and information systems. A better agriculturalknowledge and information system should correctly identify,sort and match the needs and existing technical know-how ofthree main groups: farmers, extensionists and agriculturalresearchers. The basic aim of the system would be to bring thethree groups into an equal partnership to communicate andto share knowledge. It recommends the innovativecombination of communication skills, mater ials andmethodologies in a ‘demand-driven’ mechanism, wherebyfarmers have enough status to demand and receive the bestquality agricultural research and extension services they require.The emphasis is as much on promoting dialogue amongfarmers, to help them identify and articulate their needs, as onteaching agricultural techniques. In most cases this wouldrequire the reorientation and training of extension staff toprovide them with adequate interpersonal communicationskills and materials. In rural areas, the challenge is to increasethe quantity and accessibility of information, to ensure itsexchange in appropriate ways, and to elicit more informationfrom rural people themselves in order to guide developmentplanning.

Girard, B. (2001) The Challenges of ICTs andRural Radio

This paper was presented at the First International Workshopon Farm Radio Broadcasting, 19–22 February 2001, FAO,Rome. It discuses the nature of the digital divide, limitationsof a US-style Internet model in the context of rural Africaand the characteristics that enable radio’s success in the samecontext. It looks at the way the Internet and rural radio areworking together to form low cost networks and to improveradio programming and suggests possible ways forward forNext-generation Rural Radio.

The paper identifies three ways in which radio and Internethave been recently combined for development and democracy.• National, regional and global networks of independent

broadcasters have been established;• Individual stations have used the Internet to find useful

information for their communities, and then interpretedthat information for the community, establishing themselvesas gateways to the Internet;

• Stations have used the Internet to facilitate communicationwith emigrants, enabling communities and cultures tocontinue to flourish, despite the new configurations andlocations imposed on them by globalisation.

The paper concludes that technology is neither an unavoidablebarrier nor a panacea. Communication technologies andpractices are changing. The rural radio/Internet combinationpresents an opportunity to mix the best of the two media andNext-generation Rural Radio can be a powerful tool,

combining research and reflection to harness knowledge fordevelopment.

Goldman, I. (2000) Micro to Macro: Policiesand Institutions for Empowering the RuralPoor

This report builds mainly on four studies of the institutionalissues in promoting an SL approach in Zambia, Zimbabweand two provinces in South Africa during 1999. The studyused the SL framework to structure the analysis, using a verticaltransect linking a case study village and district, through theregion/province to the centre. This involved participatory workin the village, and interviews and workshops at district level,the province and the centre. Sectoral issues were looked ataggregated to cover the 5 asset areas, and cross-cuttinginstitutional issues were considered at four levels:• The level of the community or village (micro);• The level of local support services not located in the village,

usually district (lower meso level);• An intermediate supervisory level, often a region or

province (upper meso);• A central decision-making level, either national or, in a

federal system such as South Africa, at provincial level(macro).

The paper looks at micro-macro issues using questions relatedto the role of each level and the relationship between levels:

Micro level• Are rural people active and involved in managing their

own development?• Is there a dispersed and active network of local service

providers?

Meso level• Are district (lower meso) services effective, coordinated and

responsive?• Is the region/province (upper meso)-level supportive and

supervising the districts?

Macro level• Is the centre (province or nation) providing strategic

direction, redistribution and oversight?

Examples of innovative programmes that are likely to makesignificant differences to sustainable livelihoods are cited.Programmes must build on existing institutions. In designingprogrammes/projects the requirement for effective systems forprogramme management should be used to build the capacityof existing institutions, not bypassing them by creating project-specific requirements which increase the administrativeoverload on government systems.

The SL Approach can help to identify the support required toassist the poor, notably through recognition of the importanceof micro-meso-macro level linkages. At macro level, holisticnational strategies are required on issues such as poverty, ruraldevelopment, and local economic development. The SLA canprovide a useful framework for these, so that they are basedon a real understanding of micro-level realities, and


48

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

disaggregated to suggest specific, often sectoral, actions. Thereare examples of where this has happened without the SLA,e.g. Botswana, or using the SLA as in the Free State, SA. Sucha holistic approach provides a useful overview and suggestsspecific sectoral entry points. These entry points may be atmeso level on specific services which serve the poor, or broadermacro-meso processes, such as decentralisation.

Gomez, R., Hunt, P. and Lamoureux, E. (1999)Telecentre Evaluation and Research: A globalperspective

This is the report of an International Meeting on TelecentreEvaluation in September 1999. It notes that Telecentres arethe focus of much attention in international developmentdiscourse and hailed as the solution to development problemsby providing desperately needed access to information andcommunication technologies. However this discourse isregarded by some as uncritically euphoric. The purpose of themeeting and this report was to critically examine the notionof telecentres and analyse the diversity of experiences emergingin Africa, Asia and Latin America. In particular it calls attentionto the need for improved evaluation of the impact of telecentresand ICTs. While it is generally agreed that potential exists forthe use of ICTs to support social development, until relevantmethodologies and adequate tools are developed to effectivelyassess the social impact of the application of ICTs for sustainabledevelopment from the user’s perspective, efforts to demonstratehow people are empowered by knowledge will lack credibility.This paper examines some of the preliminary assessment effortsunderway and suggests avenues for new research to improveunderstanding of the role of ICTs in international development.

It concludes with a research agenda for telecentres whichidentifies research areas requiring concerted effort in future:• the demand by people for telecentre services• community involvement, participation and use• gender and cultural issues• training needs and materials• marketing and operation• policy, trade and regulatory issues• technological choices and developments• sustainability• the social impact of telecentres, including identification of

the conditions ‘under which ICT contributes to equalityor inequality’

• the role of ICTs in the development process itself

Furthermore the context for research on the social impact ofinformation and communication technology is extremelyimportant:• future research should pursue empirical studies of existing

technologies in real settings, as distinct from speculative orpurely theoretical exercises;

• care should be taken to include representative organisations/settings, not just cutting-edge or high-tech ones;

• studies of unintended consequences of IT, such as failuresand discontinuance, are important for what they tell us aboutthese technologies and about the process of change moregenerally. Researchers should be interested in the full rangeof impacts – intended and unintended;

• projects aimed at developing prototypes should routinelyinclude a performance assessment of evaluation, and thelatter should be conducted at arm’s length from the former;

• contextual variables should be studied rigorously;• we should reconceptualise what we are doing as social and

economic studies of computing and communicationtechnologies rather than technology impact studies, andtry to avoid technological determinism.

Grace, J., Kenny, C. and Qiang, C. (2001)Information and CommunicationTechnologies and Broad-based Development:A Partial Review of the Evidence

Information and Communication Technologies are increasinglyseen as integral to the development process. This paper reviewssome of the evidence for the link between telecommunicationsand the Internet, and economic growth, the likely impact ofthe new ICTs on income inequality and anecdotal evidenceregarding the role of the Internet in improving governmentservices and governance. It looks at methods to maximize accessto the new ICTs, and improve their development impact, bothin promoting income generation and the provision of qualityservices. The paper concludes with a discussion of the broaderagenda needed to ensure the maximum return to ICTinvestments – in areas such as macro-economic and educationpolicies.

The paper examines the ways in which ICTs aid thedevelopment process. While it is clear that knowledge andideas play essential roles in advancing economic and socialwelfare, it is important to recognise that the causal relationshipis complex, and ICTs are certainly no panacea. The enthusiasmwith which the development community has rushed into ICT-related programmes often seems to overshadow the questionof precisely how ICTs contribute to national development.Exclusive emphasis on ICT projects, at the expense of carefulanalysis and consideration of the broader economic, social andpolitical elements that interact to improve the lives ofindividuals, is likely to result in unanticipated failures andwasted resources. Unfortunately, technological change movesso quickly that it often surpasses substantive analysis, leadingto an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence as justification forICT projects. This in turn can lead to poorly designedprogrammes and haphazard implementation schemes that donot account for local conditions, resulting in projects whichfail to meet their objectives or may even harm the welfare ofsupposed beneficiaries. Furthermore, as noted by Heeks (1999)investments in ICTs inevitably result in opportunity costs asthey divert investment from other developmental needs andpriorities.

Nevertheless, the revolution in ICTs has profound implicationsfor economic and social development. The key issue for bothgovernments and donors is to ensure that ICT access reacheseven the most marginalised groups, while at the same timeensuring that ICT projects meet the needs and demands ofthe target population. This paper addresses this issue in detailin two sections – the first section discusses the role of ICTs ineconomic growth and development and the second sectionlooks at the possible equity impact of ICTs within countries.

49

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

Because the majority of the poor live in rural areas, it paysspecial attention to the potential impact of ICTs on farm andrural non-farm income generation. It also discusses the ‘digitaldivide’ within countries – the disparity in access between richand poor, men and women, urban and rural populations. Thethird section looks at the use of ICTs in improving socialservices, governance and empowerment of the poor. In turn,the general effects on service provision and governance andthe particular potential impact on education, health and theenvironment are discussed. This section then turns to riskspresented by ICT use in governance and service initiatives.The final major section of the paper briefly reviews methodsto maximise the provision and impact of ICTs in developingcountries. It discusses the determinants of ICT provision,methods to maximise community access, policy and legalreforms to increase the potential for ICTs to support incomegeneration and rules for the better use of ICTs in government.

Gurstein, M. (2000) Rural Development andFood Security: A ‘Community Informatics’Based Conceptual Framework

This paper was commissioned as a background paper for theCOAIM expert workshop on the role of information andcommunication technologies in rural development and foodsecurity. It is concerned with how the opportunities associatedwith ICTs might be realised not just in the abstract as a senseof possibility, but within the real context of specific conditionsand limitations in the range of developing world contexts andspecifically for those in rural areas. Analysis starts from theproblem of access for what purpose, by whom and to what?

It is argued that a general model and a model of access specificto ICT’s for Rural Development would include:• support for a multiplicity of usage roles involving creation

and dissemination, as well as retr ieval of existinginformation;

• address the full range of possible users and the diversity oftheir life situations;

• recognise the interplay of social and technical dimensionsin the development of infrastructure;

• encompass both conventional and new media;• highlight ‘access gaps’, areas of social need likely to be left

out by market forces acting alone;• help identify what services should be considered essential.

This model is important because it will define the broadercontext within which ICT’s for Rural Development can beframed and the limitations within each of these elementspresents the constraints on making ICT’s useful for RuralDevelopment, both at the more general level and alsospecifically within each community or regional context.

The paper goes on to consider the potential of ICTs in thisregard, including dissemination of rural developmentinformation, online service delivery, e-commerce, capacitybuilding, and community organising. It concludes with adiscussion of issues surrounding deployment of integratedservice delivery systems using telecentres. The followingcomponents of a successful model are proposed:

• a community-based technical capacity to receive servicesand information;

• a social/organisational capacity to receive and redistributeservices and information;

• a social and organisational capacity to utilise and implementthe services and information in an organisational capacity;

• a technical capacity to receive Regional Developmentservices and information;

• a technical capacity to mount and deliver this information;• a human capacity to mobilise resources;• an overall Rural Development programme development

and management capability;• a means to ensure evaluation and feedback.

Heeks, R. (1998) Information Age Reform ofthe Public Sector: The Potential and Problemsof IT for India

Information technology holds huge promise for public sectormanagement and reform but in many countries, for one reasonor another, the potential is not being realised. The many failuresin the reform of the public sector in India are categorised inthis paper as being total, partial or failures of sustainability andreplicability. The problem is largely one of approach and themisunderstanding of both the role of information and morespecifically information technology in public sectormanagement has led to a wide range of different approacheswith often similarly disastrous results. These approaches canbe described as the four I’s, namely the ‘ignore’ approach, the‘isolate’ approach, the ‘idolise’ approach and the ‘integrate’approach. Of these, the most successful and only recommendedapproach is the ‘integrate’ approach which builds on anunderstanding of the importance of information and the needfor technology to play a supporting rather than leading role.Four simple steps are identified:• Acceptance by the key stakeholders of the need for reform;• Identification and communication of an agenda for reform;• Identification of the new and/or re-engineered information

systems requirements of this reform agenda;• Identification of the role, if any, that information technology

has to play in meeting these requirements.

These approaches are discussed in relation to reforms of thepublic sector in India and build on a wider discussion of Indiain the information age. Information Technology was promotedvery strongly in the mid 1980s by the government in Indiaand firmly set the stage for taking Information Technologyseriously in government reform. However, the emphasis onInformation Technology in relation to the need for reformshould not ignore the role of information systems which tendto be overlooked. The paper provides two useful definitions.Information Technology can be defined as computing andtelecommunications technologies that provide automaticmeans of handling information. Information Systems can bedefined as systems of human and technical components thataccept, store, process, output and transmit information. Theymay be used on any combination of human endeavours, paperbased methods and Information Technology. Thus, informationsystems are much more than just Information Technologybecause they involve people and their actions.


50

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

Heeks, R. (1999) Information andCommunication Technologies, Poverty andDevelopment

This paper analyses the question of whether ICTs can helpalleviate poverty in low-income countries, focusing particularlyon the role of ICTs in assisting the development of small andmicro-enterprises. It suggests that ICTs are more likely toplay a role as a communication technology, rather than as aninformation processing or production technology. Givenserious inequalities that constrain the use of ICT-basedinformation by poor entrepreneurs, ICTs may have a greaterrole to play in giving ‘voice to the poor’ i.e. making the poorinformation providers more than information recipients. Thepaper is critical of ‘the ICT fetish’ that dominates much ofdevelopment thinking at present and turns the use of ICTswithin development into an end in itself, rather than a meansof achieving other development goals. It identifies a numberof ‘development opportunity costs’ associated with thisdiscourse and increased investment in ICTs at the expense ofother sectors. Finally the following development priorities forInformation, ICTs and Poverty are identified:• The poor need knowledge to access, assess and apply existing

information and need resources for action more than theyneed access to new information;

• The poor need access to new locally-contextualisedinformation more than access to existing information froman alien context. The information needs of the poor willbe met more by informal, ‘organic’ information systemsthan formal, ICT-based information systems;

• The poor need ICTs more to give them ‘voice’ than togive them ‘hands’, ‘brains’ or ‘ears’;

• The poor need intelligent intermediaries to use ICTs;• The poor need ‘community intermediaries’ to use ICTs;• The poor will only reap the fullest benefits of ICTs when

they own and control both the technology and its relatedknow-how.

Heeks, R. and Baark, E. (1998) Evaluation ofDonor-funded Information TechnologyTransfer Projects in China: A LifecycleApproach

While information technology forms an increasingly importantcomponent of donor-funded development projects, evaluationof such projects has been comparatively rarely reported. Thispaper presents an evaluation of the information technologycomponent within four Chinese technology projects, each ofwhich is described and evaluated. The evaluation methodologyis structured around a framework termed the ‘informationtechnology transfer life-cycle’. This approach is used to identifya number of shortcomings within the various technologyprojects. More general issues surrounding training and the roleof donor agencies are also identified and somerecommendations are made about the management of ITtransfer projects and more widespread use of the life-cycleapproach in both the evaluation and planning of technologytransfer projects. The paper analyses each of the projects andthe nature of the technologies involved, with attention to thechoice of technology and issues of installation, assimilationand use, adaptation, diffusion and innovation, and sustainability.

Hilliard, R.L. (2001) Farm and Rural Radio:Some Beginnings and Models

This paper was presented at the First International Workshopon Farm Radio Broadcasting, 19–22 February 2001, FAO,Rome. It shows that while Internet development is slow inmany developing countries, it is advancing. The paper chartsthe development of farm and rural radio in the US and offerscomparisons with the developing world. Radio is identifiedas a having a crucial role in meeting development needs and isstill the medium of choice, offering the greatest potential forserving farm and rural populations.

Hussein, K. (2000) Farmers’ Organisations andAgricultural Technology: Institutions that givefarmers a voice

This paper was drafted for the livelihoods connect website.The main aim of this contribution is to demonstrate the waysin which the research on farmers’ organisation–research–extension linkages helps to unpack the policy, institutions andprocesses elements of the sustainable livelihoods approach.Examples drawn from a multi-country study covering a rangeof West and Central African contexts show how existingpolicies, institutions (organisations and legal frameworks) andprocesses related to agricultural research and extension affectpeople’s access to resources, technology, assets and livelihoodopportunities. Lessons are drawn that can inform thedevelopment of policies that support the strengthening oforganisations, which should help to improve livelihoods inthe region. Some of these relate to adjusting national policyframeworks, others can be directly supported by externalagencies such as DFID.

The key practical policy lessons from the study include:• While agricultural research is not usually a priority for

farmers’ organisations, these organisations are often effectivein providing their members with better access to research,extension, inputs and marketing;

• Strengthening the technical, economic and managementcapacities of farmers’ organisations is essential for them tobe able to establish linkages with research and extension;

• Helping public research and extension services understandand take on board producer requests requires training inparticipatory methods, existence of fora for sharing lessonson successful partnerships, field experience of working withfarmers’ organisations and new professional incentives thatmake researchers and extension workers keen to make theirwork relevant to producer needs;

• The different actors often do not have the capacities requiredto successfully work in partnership. Hence capacity buildingwork for farmers’ organisations, public extension andresearch organisations, and the private sector is necessaryto increase their use of participatory methodologies, increasetechnical skills and the ability to negotiate and makeproposals, and increase social science skills.

This research was based on the premise that it is useful tocompare diverse case studies of farmers’ organisations in orderto identify factors that contribute to an increased downwardaccountability of service providers in specific contexts.

51

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

The comparison of case studies across contexts and countriescontributes to the unpacking of the policy, institutions andprocesses elements of the sustainable livelihoods approach,providing some answers to the question of why farmers’organisations are successful in achieving downwardaccountability in certain settings and not in others. The studyassessed of the role of the political context, history, legislativeand economic reform in the process – elements not explicitin the sustainable livelihoods framework, but of key importancein shaping livelihood outcomes.

Kenny, C., Nava-Sabater, J. and Qiang, C.Z.(2000) ICTs and Poverty

ICTs are increasingly central in the effort to escape poverty.This is recognised by the poor themselves who, if given theoption, are willing to spend over two percent of their incomeon telecommunications. In Chile, for example, the poor spendabout the same amount on telecommunications as they do onelectricity. This expenditure excludes the numerous othercommunications tools accessed by the poor – including radio,television, and post. ICTs provide access to information thatcan create earning opportunities, improve access to basicservices, or increase the impact of education and healthinterventions. ICTs also give the poor a voice to demandgovernment support and reform. Section 2 of this documentoutlines some of the ways that the poor are using ICTs toimprove their own lives, and some of the ways that governmentscan use ICTs to improve their service delivery, especially tothe poorest.

The examples provided suggest that the role of ICTs in povertyreduction is through their ‘catalytic and leveraging’ effect onearnings opportunities, educational services and welfareprovision. However because information exchange is centralto almost all aspects of the economy, the impact of improvedinformation exchange capacity will depend critically on howthe rest of the economy functions. This necessitates an holisticapproach to evaluating the impact of ICT development. Forexample, the impact of improved ICT access on farm earningsthrough increased knowledge of market prices will be mutedif there are no roads to carry crops to markets, or no marketsbecause of an unreformed agricultural sector. This lesson shouldbe of particular concern to policymakers in the governmentservices sector, as increased ICT use in government can onlybe effective as part of a larger reform effort.

There are ways to rapidly increase access through aggregatingthe poor’s demand for services. There are also methods tointermediate access to the Internet using more widely availableICTs such as radio. Section 3 discusses demand and supplyconstraints which act as barriers to ICT access. Section 4addresses methods for increased access, including sector reform,pro-poor regulatory policies and universal access funds. Section4 also discuss methods to maximise the poverty-reductionimpact of (government) investment in ICTs.

McConnell, S., Richardson, D., Doehler, M.and Wong, W. (2001) Telecentres around theWorld: Issues to be considered and lessonslearned

This paper gives an overview of the issues facing telecentreinitiatives around the world. These issues include matters thatcut across technical and political considerations, such asselection of sites, selection of management groups, choice ofequipment, and gender issues. They also draw attention to theimportance of participatory mechanisms, political networkingand interaction, and a good understanding of local powerrelationships and the local context. Much of the literature hasfound that sensitisation of the community leads to broaderusage of the telecentre services. This includes building anunderstanding of the informational needs of the differentgroups within the community. Future challenges to telecentresare, amongst others:• the need to build the independence of the community• introducing new technology (including telephone) to rural

areas• overcoming illiteracy• providing adequate information about telecentres – e.g.

through the Internet, workshops, school programmes, freeinformation to authorities and storytelling

• the need for local content and local training needs• developing appropriate pricing levels• addressing the lack of training and resources

Michiels, S.I. and Van Crowder, L. (2001)Discover ing the ‘Magic Box’: LocalAppropr iation of Information andCommunication Technologies (ICTs)

This paper was compiled as a desk study on the appropriationof new ICTs by local communities and groups in developingcountries.

The objectives of the paper are:• To provide information in support of the area of research

and discourse on ICT appropriation, namely that of ‘localappropriation’;

• To draw attention to the need for a greater focus ongrassroots, community-driven projects and initiativesinvolving ICTs;

• To highlight the pressing need for monitoring, evaluationand participatory impact assessments of ongoing ICTprojects and initiatives, especially with regards to their effecton the economic and social livelihoods of communities;

• To present a selection of ‘good practice’ cases with the aimof promoting sustainable community development throughlocal appropriation and application of ICTs;

• To draw on a review of the cases in order to identify someguiding principles for promoting socially and culturallyappropriate community-based ICT initiatives.

The main findings of the study are:• There are a limited number of cases of community-driven

ICT initiatives or projects;• There is scarce visibility and coverage of grassroots/

community-driven ICT initiatives;


52

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

• Most of the documentation available on community ICTprojects and initiatives is relatively new because the projectsthemselves are new. Few if any evaluations have beenundertaken so far;

• Participatory needs assessments are rarely performed priorto ICT applications, for example in the installation orformation of telecentres. The emphasis is more often onproviding access than on innovative ways of applying ICTsto the specific information needs of communities and localgroups;

• The priorities of many ICT projects tend to be influencedmore by the interests of external organisations rather thancommunity-based organisations;

• The thematic sectors applied in the ICT projects oftenreflect an economic, market-related focus;

• Target groups/beneficiaries are hard to identify;• There is a lack of local participation in the creation of

content and selection of ICT tools;• There is a profusion of information centres where

computers, or other ICTs, are available but where a lack ofawareness, ICT skills and literacy hinder the process of localappropriation.

The report offers some guiding principles for the formulationof socially and culturally appropriate community-based ICTprojects.

Mundy, P. and Sultan, J. (2001) InformationRevolutions: How information andcommunication management is changing thelives of rural people

This book presents around 40 examples of mainly local ornational organisations in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific,who have changed the way communication works and therebymade a difference to the lives and livelihoods of rural people.They cover a wide range of communication systems and issues,including radio and television, newspapers and newsletters,literacy programmes, computers and telecommunications,farmers’ groups and markets, farmers’ knowledge, research andextension links, research networks, and libraries. Just oneexample is the broadcasting of a radio soap opera in Kenyathat is designed to deal with various development issues. The‘soap opera for development’ engages with topics such as pestmanagement, malaria, and gender relations. The radio showhas recognised that drama is a powerful way of communicating,and is also able to bring out nuances of a problem and presentdifferent arguments. Importantly, it is entertaining, and anindependent study has shown that about 36% of Kenyans setaside time to listen to the soap opera.

Munyua, H. (2000) Information andCommunication Technologies for RuralDevelopment and Food Security: Lessons fromField Experiences in Developing Countries

This paper was commissioned as a background paper for theCOAIM expert workshop on the role of information andcommunication technologies in rural development and foodsecurity. It examines the effect ICTs have already had on

decision-making processes, markets, the media, localempowerment, the targeting of marginal groups andemployment. The potential of new ICTs for rural development,and applications of ICTs in rural areas, are examined withexamples from Latin America, Africa and Asia. It then discusesthe use of ICTs for improving linkages with reference toVERCON and FARMNets. Finally it addresses constraintsin the establishment and management of community-basedICT projects and the role of partners in ensuring appropriateuse of ICTs – in particular difficulties encountered with thepolicy environment, infrastructures, illiteracy, genderdiscrimination, costs and the lack of human resources. Itconcludes by calling for greater international cooperation toharness synergies of the respective partners and urges FAO toforge alliances and coalitions with other international, regional,national, donor, multilateral and development agencies, publicand non-public institutions, and rural groups. The partnershipcould then work jointly in planning, piloting, promoting andimplementing innovative initiatives that seek to harness ICTsfor food security and rural development.

Nelson, J. and Farrington, J. (1994) InformationExchange Networking for Agr iculturalDevelopment: A Review of Concepts andPractices

Nelson and Farrington identify two types of networks:information exchange networks (IEN), and organisations witha networking function (ONF). IENs usually have a flatterstructure than ONFs, as IENs tend to share informationthrough mutual communication, increasingly via the Internet.ONFs have a more centralised structure, and therefore moreoften provide one-way information services such as CD ROMsand databases. There are also large variations within each ofthese two types of networks, and Nelson and Farrington giveseveral illustrations of this. For example, networks can functionin a hub-and-spoke formation, where various members havemultiple objectives, thus requiring an element of centralisationin order to coordinate these different interests. Alternatively,the rim-effect network relies much less on a central institution,and instead the members profit from the opportunity of linkingup with each other. The book concludes that there are sometensions inherent in networking which are important toaddress. The three tensions identified are leadership versusresponsiveness, degree of formalisation, and definingboundaries.

O’Farrell, C., Norrish, P. and Scott, A. (1999)Information and CommunicationTechnologies for Sustainable Livelihoods

This paper was presented as a contribution to discussions atthe COAIM expert workshop on the role of information andcommunication technologies in rural development and foodsecurity. It focuses on new communication technologies andexisting information systems, and small-scale farmers andentrepreneurs in rural communities. Specifically it covers therisks of ICTs further marginalising disadvantaged communitiesand how adverse affects might be mitigated, and whether andhow modern ICTs can be used to strengthen and develop the

53

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

information systems of small-scale farmers and entrepreneursin rural communities with a view to reducing poverty. Thefollowing policy conclusions and recommendations are made:• Examples of good practice approaches to ICT projects are

beginning to come thorough though failure is still beingdownplayed and accurate costings are rarely available. Morerigorous monitoring and evaluation of projects is required.However, organisations need support in doing this;

• There should be a shift from technology driven projects toconsider the wider systemic economic, social andcommunication needs of communities;

• Greater understanding of existing information systems –how information is gathered, stored, shared, concretised andevaluated amongst rural stakeholders – will aid theappropriate application of ICTs;

• Accommodating all sectors of society (particularly ruralcommunities, women and the disabled) in the transitionfrom traditional through to new learning societies is anurgent issue for policy-makers;

• Strategies should be developed for ICTs that specificallytarget women and young girls;

• Private sector ICT providers should be encouraged toprovide services to rural areas;

• Donors should work in the short term to service the ICTneeds of those unable to pay or operating outside monetaryeconomies.

Pasteur, K. (2001a) Tools for SustainableLivelihoods: Livelihoods Monitoring andEvaluation

This paper was prepared for discussion on the livelihoodsconnect website. Livelihoods M&E is still in a process ofevolution and experimentation. This paper draws on someearly experience and conceptual thinking, and outlines theadded value that a livelihoods approach brings to M&E. Threekey features of the Sustainable Livelihoods approach help toprovide further insight, and improve on the focus, prioritiesand methods of conventional styles of M&E:• Its broad focus highlights not just project impacts, but wider

livelihoods goals;• The livelihoods principles form the basis for innovative

methodologies;• The livelihoods framework helps with the design of better

oriented and more relevant indicators.

Hence, livelihoods M&E outputs will differ from those ofconventional M&E in a number of ways. They provide abroader, more dynamic view of project impacts throughoutthe project lifetime, rather than a one-off, ex-post assessment.They try to link the context with the outcomes and impacts– helping to explain why and how. Instead of policing,Livelihoods M&E builds a culture of learning and reflecting,and aims to provide relevant information for planning andpolicy-making.

How does livelihoods M&E fit in the project cycle? LivelihoodsM&E can take place at the project, the programme and thecountry strategy level. The basic principles of this process holdalso for programme and strategy planning, i.e. that monitoringshould be seen as an iterative, learning process, with constant

feedback loops correcting implementation and operation, aswell as lessons feeding back to the design stage of new projectsor programmes under identification. Information and lessonsgenerated at both the monitoring, and the evaluation stagesshould be made available to the range of stakeholders involvedin the project through appropriate events (e.g. workshops) ormedia (e.g. posters, video). Sharing of lessons can also takeplace between sectors, programmes and even countries.However Livelihoods M&E is not intended as something thatonly feeds into the project cycle. Its goals should stretch beyondthe project time frame, aiming to build capacity for continuouslearning and the creating of relevant information for policyand planning decision. It should also stretch beyond projectboundaries, and seek to understand the wider livelihoodscontext and trends.

Some of these problems can be at least partially overcome.Participatory methods are not always more costly thanconventional methods, particularly if conventional methodsinvolve international consultants with high fees, or purchaseof technical equipment, e.g. for remote sensing. The costs ofstaff, training and other resources required to set up an M&Eunit may be significant, but such a unit can be based within anexisting structure, or its development can be gradual over time.

Furthermore, the value of establishing a sustainable, learning-process oriented and people-centred M&E system is, of course,considerable. Benefits include, amongst others:• Costs saved in halting or redesigning activities that are

having unforeseen negative effects;• Benefits of a clearer understanding of the project goals and

impacts including how they relate to Sustainable Livelihoods;• Rewards from having more motivated project staff and

beneficiaries who are not afraid to acknowledge difficultiesand learn from experience.

The implications of these new goals and perspectives forimplementation are only now beginning to be explored andtested in the field. As more experiences of Livelihoods M&Eare documented and shared further insights and practical lessonscan be added.

Pauli, G. (1999) Towards a Technology Strategyfor Sustainable Livelihoods

This is one of a series of strategy papers on the sustainablelivelihoods approach put together by the UNDP SL unit. Thepaper advocates a systems approach to technology developmentwhich, while focused on grassroots level, incorporates allstakeholders in the development strategy from the local tointernational level. The purpose of this paper is to contributeto the definition of the Technology Strategy for SustainableLivelihoods (TSSL). To do this, the document:• looks at what is meant by a systems approach to TSSL;• describes a three tier framework (national, meso and local

levels) in which the TSSL takes place and outlinesrecommended action at each of these levels;

• outlines action which can be taken to improve linkagesbetween the stakeholders who will be involved in the TSSLand discusses methods of ensuring community participationin technology development;discusses action that can be


54

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

taken to ensure community participation in the TSSL;• highlights the importance of technology for organisational

systems (i.e. marketing and distribution);• proposes practical action and entry points for the

development of a technology strategy for SL.

Throughout the document the discussion is illustrated by aseries of concrete case studies from Asia-Pacific, Africa andLatin America. It argues that the objective of a technologystrategy for sustainable livelihoods must be the developmentand adoption of technologies which:• improve the productivity of a communities assets;• enhance capabilities and provide for new livelihood

opportunities for the poor;• are sustainable in an environmental and socioeconomic sense

i.e. technology that promotes equality in society;• empower communities especially vulnerable groups within

this sector;• link communities in similar circumstances and relevant

stakeholders through appropriate networks.

Effective community participation in the technologydevelopment strategy will ensure that outside technology andknow-how does not dominate in the development process.Traditionally an outside team of researchers would be broughtin to survey the community and the information from thiswould be used to develop technologies for the community. Inthis scenario the community members act as informants andthe outsider researchers as analysts. This traditional ‘extractive’process needs to be changed into a more participatory process.To ensure this, a transition is needed whereby the outsider/analysts become facilitators in the development process whilethe community members become the researchers/analysts.Areas of intervention for the TSSL should be based on theunderlying principles of the SL concept:• Participatory – assessment to determine local assets,

entitlements, adaptive strategies and local technologies andrecommend appropriate technological developmentsdesigned to improve and contribute to SL. Promotenetworking and sharing of information, knowledge andlessons learned/best practice among stakeholder groups. Thiswill also empower previously marginalised groups to betterarticulate their developmental needs and demands at mesoand macro levels;

• Focus on strengths – the strategy should build on existingtechnologies and identify how modern technologies canstrengthen traditional technologies and vice versa, and theoptimum combination of each;

• Equity – assessment of the impact on vulnerable andmarginalised groups. Often the easiest entry point is throughelite groups in a community but this is likely to result intechnologies subsequently being appropriated by the eliteand should be avoided;

• Flexibility – technologies should be tailored to the specificsocioeconomic and agro-ecological environment faced byeach community, new technologies are likely to have aprofound effect which goes beyond the immediate andverifiable impact of generating new wealth;

• Macro-micro linkages – an efficient networking capacityshould be developed to enhance the interaction betweenstakeholders in the TSSL. The introduction of ICTs is animportant part of this process;

• Stability – during the participatory assessment stage of theSL process shocks and stresses likely to be faced by thecommunity must be identified and technologies adaptedto cope with them;

• Monitoring and evaluation – a technology strategy is aconstantly evolving process and should be modified aslessons are learned and new technologies/approaches aredeveloped and discovered.

Richardson, D. (1997) The Internet and Ruraland Agricultural Development: An IntegratedApproach

This paper was prepared for the FAO in 1997 following afact-finding mission in March and July 1996. The executivesummary notes that the Internet is rapidly expanding indeveloping countries. This expansion is, however, largely anurban phenomenon and most rural communities are not yetable to take advantage of the services available to their urbanneighbours. The paper recommends an integrated approachto facilitating Internet services and applications that will benefitrural communities and agricultural organisation. This approachbegins with the needs of rural people and grassroot agriculturalorganisations, and works to establish vertical and horizontalchannels of communication. In this way, rural people andfarmers can open new communication channels to enhancerelationships with one another, and they can participate indialogue and information exchange with decision-makers,planners, researchers and others who may reside far beyondrural communities. Pilot projects linked to rural andagr icultural organisations can help ensure that ruralcommunities and agricultural organisations remain part ofregional and national Internet initiatives. The paper includesrecommendations for strategies, funding mechanisms andsupport systems, together with examples of innovativeapproaches in Mexico and Chile. It concludes with a call foraction and better ways for donor agencies to work togetherand share lessons learned in this rapidly moving area ofinternational development.

Strategy recommendations include:• promote policy and regional coordination of Internet

strategies for rural and agricultural development;• establish rural Internet pilot projects;• promote FAO’s communication for development approach;• support efforts to liberalise telecommunication policies in

developing countries;• support local Internet entrepreneurs and other service

providers in developing countries;• assist stakeholders in advocating for Internet service

provision, and telecommunication infrastructure and policyimprovements;

• orient existing FAO and related Internet informationservices to users in developing countries;

• support rural and agricultural education sector Internetcapability;

• provide Internet awareness building and demonstration;• support rural and remote infrastructure development;• support creative Internet applications and information

services for rural and agricultural development.

55

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

The paper calls for immediate action to support Internetactivities in developing countries. The contemporary world ischaracterised by elite information ‘haves’ and many information‘have-nots’. The new technologies available, provide anopportunity to change this and to support sustainabledevelopment in rural and agricultural communities. Adoptinga proactive strategy and acting to bring the Internet to ruraland agricultural communities in developing countries will helpenable rural people to face the unprecedented challengesbrought on by the changing global economy, dynamic politicalcontexts, environmental degradation and demographicpressures. To deal with these challenges and make appropriatedecisions, people at all levels of society, and especially the foodinsecure and the organisations that serve and represent them,must be able to access critical information and communicate.Improved communication and information access are directlyrelated to social and economic development. Participatorydevelopment is fully dependent upon communication andinformation sharing processes. Richardson notes that the FAOhas an historic opportunity to ensure that rural and agriculturalcommunities link electronic ‘village trails’ to the ‘informationsuper-highway’.

The paper explores the benefits of rural Internet access,improved hor izontal communication, elements forsustainability and success, and presents a vision of an integratedapproach to facilitating Internet services. It reviews experiencein this field to date and identifies common elements amongsuccessful rural and agricultural Internet communication andinformation systems.

Richardson, D. (1999) The Virtual Research andExtension Communication Network(VERCON): An Interactive Learning andCommunication Network for Research andExtension Personnel

This concept paper prepared for the FAO describes a suite ofnetworked electronic tools that can facilitate improvement incommunication processes and information sharing amongstakeholders involved in agricultural development. The suiteof tools is descr ibed as an extension and researchcommunication network that will be collaboratively developedand implemented by research and extension personnel withina Ministry of Agriculture, in consultation and collaborationwith key stakeholders. The suite of tools are themselves artifactsof a planned and on-going process of stakeholder involvementin mapping communication and information shar ingrelationships and identifying critical relationships that requireimprovement in order to reach agricultural development andfood security goals. The result of an effective VERCON willbe research and extension personnel who are able tostrategically collaborate in order to meet the challenges ofagr icultural development, in partnership with otherstakeholders.

The paper specifically addresses the following:• Collaborative electronic media learning tools relevant to

complex agricultural systems;• Collaborative information and communication networks

in agriculture today;

• Multi-stakeholder approach to designing information andcommunication networks and learning tools;

• Learning strategies and media applications that could beincorporated in the VERCON;

• The benefit that farmers will gain from the enhanced toolsand the means that would enable them to become co-owners and active partners in the process of creating andmanaging a VERCON;

• Integration of VERCON within the organisational andpolicy framework of a Ministry of Agriculture’s currentagricultural knowledge and information system;

• The potential for linkage activities with various bodies of anational Ministry of Agriculture.

A key conclusion is that although anyone can create andmanage a suite of electronic tools that might be used byagricultural stakeholders, only stakeholders themselves cancreate and manage a suite of tools that will be used to enhanceagricultural sustainability and food security. Stakeholderownership and management of a VERCON is a key outcomethat requires careful planning and partnership development.

Richardson, D. (2001) The Practical Reality ofKnowledge Management Within DevelopmentInitiatives

Richardson argues that knowledge management is a verypersonal activity that, if practiced widely, can improveorganisation’s ability to achieve development results. […]Personally accessible, immediately useful and relativelyinexpensive personal knowledge management tools canempower development workers to take ownership of theirintellectual assets. Knowledge management starts with theindividual and moves through an organisation. Every individualuses knowledge management tools – including personalmemory, date books, notebooks, file cabinets, email archives,calendars, post-it notes, bulletin boards, newsletters, journals,and restaurant napkins. Knowledge management begins whenan organisation enables individuals to link their personalknowledge management systems with organisationalknowledge management systems.

Knowledge management tools only work when individualssee direct benefits in linking their personal knowledgemanagement systems with organisational knowledgemanagement systems. If development workers believe that thechores of contr ibuting to an organisational knowledgemanagement programme benefit only their bosses, and notthemselves or the communities with which they work, theymay decide the best way to take advantage of the value oftheir individual knowledge is to use it for personal or localadvantage. This results in serious knowledge deficits for thewider organisation. [Introduction taken from paper]


56

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

Richardson, D. and Paisley, L. (eds.) (1998) Thefirst mile of connectivity: Advancingtelecommunications for rural developmentthrough a participatory communicationapproach

This book is published by the Communication forDevelopment department of the FAO and contains a collectionof papers reflecting international experience and proposalsfor promoting telecommunications infrastructure in ruralcommunities using participatory approaches. The book isseparated into five main sections dealing with the rural context(first mile), comparable participatory approaches using othermedia such as radio and video, practical approaches to ruraltelecommunications markets, integrated tools to support ruralknowledge systems, and the policy context. Richardson setsthe theme that is followed up throughout the book that it isimportant to connect rural communities to an increasinglyglobalised world dominated by market forces despite theapparent low priority of telecommunications in the poorestcommunities. The remoteness of many rural communities ispreventing them from participating not only in the processesof global change but more specifically in their owndevelopment and progress. The gap between ‘informationhaves’ and ‘information have nots’ will continue to rise unlessthe processes of improving participation in communicationfor development projects, such as those advocated by Norrish,Snowden and Moetsabi can be integrated with strategies foradvancing telecommunications that ensure broad-based accessand community ownership (Hudson). Case studies andexperiences from the North (Richardson, Snowden, Gorenflo)provide useful illustrations of the histor ical processes ofdevelopment in rural telecommunications with relevance toboth the policy debate and the processes of institutionalcapacity building, especially at the community level. Currentexperiences in developing countries are also covered in depthand a range of approaches such as democratic development inAsia (Ford) and opportunities to harness the latest technicaladvancements such as ‘wireless systems’ in Africa (Jensen andRichardson) provide authoritative recommendations forimproving rural connectivity in developing countries forsustainable development (Ernberg). Richardson describes agrowing international convergence between public and privatesector interests that could be harnessed to provide a ‘win-win’situation for all involved.

In recognising the enormous challenges of developing ruraltelecommunications initiatives that can meet these goals, anumber of lessons from international experience arehighlighted which include:• Start working with community organisation leaders who

instantly see the benefits of rural telecommunicationservices. Work with organisational leaders who arepredisposed to collaborative, open and participatorycommunication approaches to community development.Do not expend too much time and energy attempting toconvince organisational leaders who are predisposed to ‘turfwars’ and ‘empire-building’ and who demonstrate littleregard for public participation processes. Their participationwill follow, in due time, as rural telecommunication servicesgain popularity.

• Provide many opportunities for women and young peopleto actively participate and volunteer their time and energyfor practical and identifiable tasks that support ruraltelecommunication systems. Recognise and reward theirefforts at every opportunity, and provide mechanisms toensure that they can participate in key management oradvisory roles.

• Continuously remind all involved that, at its core, a ruraltelecommunications service has the dual goals of sustainingitself through revenue generation and supporting ruraldevelopment.

• Recognise that telecommunication policies seldom containthe elements that actively and effectively enable the creativeconditions, ownership models, interconnection agreements,and pr icing ar rangements that foster ruraltelecommunication services. Stakeholder engagement is onestrategy to help change that if stakeholders can assume policyadvocacy roles.

Rivera, W. (2001) Agricultural and RuralExtension: Options for Reform

This paper addresses some of the current issues that areprevalent in the debate about the future of agriculturalextension, regarding both the role of government and the needfor new institutional frameworks, owing to the failure of manyexisting extension systems. The paper also reviews FAOs rolein providing extension support, both through the developmentof alternative methodologies and the support for many of theinstitutions involved in extension services.

The reforms outlined by Rivera focus on the market issuesthat are central to the debate over the changing role of publicversus pr ivate extension funding and delivery. Thecommercialisation of agricultural extension that has taken placein countries such as The Netherlands and England has led tothe provision of services by the private sector, with a decreasingrole for government in terms of both funding and delivery. Inmany developing countries the market reforms that are neededto develop private sector extension services are taking placeslowly. In order to support more market oriented agriculturalproduction that is integrated with the globalising economythere is a growing diversity of needs among farmers that cannotbe addressed through the existing government extensionservices. The FAO has historically been a leading proponentof developing new and alternative extension methodologiesin response to the recognition of diverse needs throughout itsglobal programmes. The FAO programmes support extensionactivities at a number of different levels, ranging fromgovernment to NGOs and farmers. The global reality of a‘new paradigm towards market-related reforms’ is likely torequire greater understanding of the needs of different targetgroups and the concomitant development of diverse extensionsystems to meet those disparate needs. FAO has considerablecomparative advantage in both the identification of differenttarget groups and the promotion of different approaches toreflect those needs. Farming Systems Development, FarmerField Schools, Distance Education, the National agriculturalExtension Systems Reform Initiative, FarmNet and VERCONare some of the range of approaches developed by the FAOand used across the technical units for different sectoral

57

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

programmes. One common approach is the use of participationthreat, reflected most explicitly in the Farmer Field Schoolsbut also a key feature of the wide range of activities. Riveraexplains that ‘Empowering local communities and smallfarmers in the use and development of extension servicesthrough participatory approaches remains one of FAOs mostcentral and important tasks’. Participation is also capable ofbeing integrated into any number of market-based and non-market based reforms as it relates to the extension methodologyand not an institutional arrangement affecting governmentstructure.

The diversity of extension approaches could also be reflectedin the approach taken to institutional reform. The institutionalstructure of agricultural extension systems in many countriesinvolves a wide range of actors from government, to NGO, toprivate sector, including partnerships and consultants that blurthe boundaries between them. For this reason the FAO engagesthe full range of institutional actors in developing countriesand often adopts a policy of ‘institutional pluralism’, especiallyregarding the delivery of services. This enables increasedflexibility in the delivery of services from a wide range oforganisations including cooperatives, consultancy firms andnon-profit NGOs. The AKIS/RD helps to identify theinstitutional relationships that are central to extension reform.However, Rivera questions whether participation and pluralismamongst extension providers can genuinely create newpartnerships that are themselves pluralistic? There are a numberof further issues that need to be considered for the extensionreform agenda, such as the partnerships that may form betweenfarmers and the private sector; the development of improvedcost-recovery systems; decentralisation by government to allowdecision-making at the lowest levels; subsidiarity of operationalresponsibility; and diversification of the non-farm economy.

Roling, N. (1995) What to think of extension?A Comparison of Three Models of ExtensionPractice

This paper provides a critical assessment of the prevailingextension model known as the linear model and is based ontechnology transfer from agricultural research to farmers as‘users’. The paper refers to numerous other critical analyses ofthe linear model and explains that certain basic tenets of themodel are wrong most of the time. Specifically, technologiesare usually re-invented as they are adopted by others, andfarmers themselves are keen experimenters and researchers,leading to most new ideas resulting from practice rather thanresearch. The linear model, despite its problems in practice,fits well with existing structures, and provides a logical andsimple approach to extension. Roling argues that few peoplecan envisage an alternative, but further understanding of thedimensions that underlie extension models can help tointroduce two new and different models. Five dimensions ofextension models are explained and used as a comparativeframework for the three models.

Comparative model (1) Advisory Work:Advisory work focuses not only on raising productivity buton improving the farm business as an enterprise. This holisticmodel has many of the characteristics of the Sustainable

Livelihoods approach and it assumes an active problem solvingfarmer who seeks advice from outside sources when a problemcannot be solved locally, and other sources are available andappear useful:• Dimension 1. The nature of innovation: Innovation in this

model is driven by the entrepreneurship of the farmmanager, with innovations ranging from technical changeto finding new markets. Innovation can take place at thestrategic, management or operational level.

• Dimension 2. The assumed nature of learning aboutinnovation by farmers: Farmer learning by adoption ofintroduced technologies is but one of the many aspects ofentrepreneurial learning. Farmers learning is more aboutimproving the farmer’s problem solving ability, such asthrough problem/opportunity definition, diagnosis,identifying options, adopting and implementing solutionsand evaluating results.

• Dimension 3.The assumed nature of extension: Extensionis advisory work and responds directly to farmer’s needs.The extension adviser is an expert who has a wide repertoireof knowledge on which he can draw depending upon thefarmer’s need. Specialists will also be required to supportextension workers who will not be able to answer all thefarmer’s needs. Databases of information and networks ofrelevant specialists could also provide a useful supportinginfrastructure to the advisory work of extension.

• Dimension 4: Institutional framework: The AKIS in theadvisory model is totally different from the linear model.The farmer needs access to a cadre of highly specialisedand mobile advisors who are backstopped by var iousexperts, on-line computer services, written informationsources etc. These advisors are part of the network ofspecialised services which the farmer uses such asbookkeeping, banking, input supply, genetic material supply,insurance etc.

• Dimension 5: Conducive policy framework: The conducivepolicy framework for the advisory model focuses onstimulating business and market development subsidises anetwork of highly specialised services and informationsources, making available market and other information.

Comparative model (2) Facilitation:The facilitation model has emerged especially in situationswhere farmers need to apply general principles to their ownconditions, where few external inputs are available or desirable,and where the farmer must be the expert instead of theextension worker. This approach appears to be of particularrelevance to poor farmers who are often excluded from existingextension services and for the pursuit of low external inputagriculture development. The focus on sustainability isexemplified by the IPM programmes in Indonesia andelsewhere. The focus on sustainability and a holistic approachto farm management and exploiting diversity make the modelcomparable to the Sustainable Livelihoods approach in mayways:• Dimension 1. The nature of innovation: Innovation in the

facilitation model is basically the improvement of themanagement of the farm as an agro-ecosystem, by applyingecological principles, using natural processes to their besteffect, exploiting diversity and anticipating events based oninformed observation.


58

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

• Dimension 2. The assumed nature of learning aboutinnovation by farmers: Farmer learning consists of discoverylearning, group discussion and builds up a reliance on ownobservation, knowledge and ability to make good decisions.

• Dimension 3.The assumed nature of extension: The focusof facilitation is to help people learn to become experts ontheir own farms. Facilitation of learning is promoted forexample by the Farmer Field Schools for the IPM IndonesiaProgramme following the failure of the linear approachand Training and Visit type of extension.

• Dimension 4: Institutional framework: The AKIS requiredfor facilitation is a network of facilitators who are able tovisit learner groups regularly. Networks of trained farmersare also essential to exchange experience and stimulate eachother to continue to learn. Farmers must be able to meetregularly and exchange information.

• Dimension 5: Conducive policy framework: Funding forfarmer horizontal networking, removal of subsidies oninputs and appropriate accounting of environmental costs.

The range of models represents the different goals such asproductivity, business success and sustainability. Models servedifferent purposes and are not inherently good or bad. Thelinear system is entrenched and fits with bureaucratic structures.The diversity of the role of extension and the call for a moreholistic and livelihoods focus suggests that alternative extensionmodels should be considered to support the diversity of needs.

Shankland, A. (2000) Analysing Policy forSustainable Livelihoods

The sustainable livelihoods framework has now been widelyadopted, tested and adapted. There is an emerging consensusamong users that, while it provides a valuable way of structuringmicro-level studies of livelihoods, it gives little practicalguidance on how to link the findings of such studies withmacro-level issues and in particular, with policy analysis. As aresult, there remains a wide gap between bottom-up livelihoodsanalysis and top-down policy analysis, with the findings ofthe former generally being seen as too context-specific toguide policy-making, and the findings of the latter generallybeing seen as too highly aggregated to reflect the complexityof livelihoods. This report argues that it is possible to use theSL approach as a starting-point for bridging this gap, but thatdoing so requires three elements which have so far beenlacking: a model of the interactions between policy andlivelihoods, which is consistent with the SL framework; a clearerunderstanding of the role of social and political capital withinthe framework; and an approach to policy analysis, structuredto ensure that it can both draw on and feed into SL analysis.In presenting and discussing an outline of each of these threeelements, the report draws on the academic social capital andpolicy process literature, as well as on lessons from recentexperience of using the framework in applied research.

However, theoretical discussion is kept to a minimum, sincethe principal intention is to provide a practical guide toidentifying entry points for policy-focused interventions topromote sustainable livelihoods. Detailed guidance forapplication of the concepts discussed in the report is presentedin the Annex, structured around a checklist of key questions

and illustrated with case material from studies carried out bythe IDS Sustainable Livelihoods Programme in Ethiopia andMali.

The discussion of interactions between policy and livelihoods,and people and policy identifies a number of key issues forSL-focused policy analysis. These issues can in turn be used togenerate a checklist of questions around which such processesof analysis can be structured. This checklist is presented below,illustrating a proposed five-stage process designed to moveiteratively between policy and people, combining macro-levelanalysis of policy with insights from micro-level SL analysis.

A checklist for analysing policy for sustainable livelihoods:

Part 1: Livelihood priorities:1. Who and where are the poor?2. What are their livelihood priorities?3. What policy sectors are relevant to these priorities?

Part 2: The policy context:1. What is policy in those sectors?2. Who makes policy in those sectors?3. What is the macro policy context?

Part 3: Policy measures:1. What measures have been put in place to implement each

policy?2. What are the characteristics of these policy measures?3. Through what institutions and organisations are these

measures channelled?

Part 4: Policy in the local context:1. In what shape do these institutions and organisations exist

locally?2. What other institutions and organisations affect local

responses to policy?3. What other local institutions and organisations might policy

affect?

Part 5: People and policy:1. What resources can poor people draw on to influence

policy?2. What opportunities exist for poor people to influence policy

directly?3. What opportunities exist for poor people to influence policy

indirectly?

Siochrú, S. (2001) From KnowledgeManagement to Knowledge for Empowerment

This report examines the applicability of the principles ofknowledge management in the context of IFAD’s developmentactivities. It is premised on the idea that the relationshipbetween a development organisation and its ultimate clients,disempowered and poor communities, is, of necessity, verydifferent to the relationship between a corporation and itscustomers. The objectives of the two processes are different, asare the intermediary actors between the core organisation andthe final customers. Knowledge management techniques suchas those espoused by the World Bank are certainly relevant in

59

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

the IFAD development context. However, while theirrelevance is greatest at the institutional level, it tapers quicklyas one enters the world of IFAD Projects, and at the level ofthe target communities, it requires modification to the pointof obliteration as a coherent guiding set of techniques. It isargued that the philosophy and techniques of empowerment,and the use of knowledge to empower, should be the guidingprinciple in supporting the development of poor communities.This report is primarily concerned with the Project level,interactions between Projects and their target communities,and the use of knowledge by poor communities themselves.

The report proposes a strategy for capacity building of poorcommunities to use knowledge to achieve their goals. Thecentral focus of all knowledge interactions between Projectsand communities should be on empowering communities.IFAD Project knowledge interactions with communitiesshould therefore have three general aims:• To support Project processes, such as identification of targets

groups, planning, monitoring and evaluation. IFAD alreadyvigorously pursues the introduction of participatoryapproaches, an essential precondition and aspect ofempowerment, and this should be continued. Additionalelements might include greatly expanded transparency andinformation provision to communities and theirorganisations, including pro-active measures and facilitiesfor community consultation of all relevant material and forengaging in Project-community dialogue.

• To support implementation of Project actions. This includestechnical and other information provided directly by theProject to supplement and reinforce development actionstaken. However, more empowering are measures that allowcommunities and people to learn together and from eachother, such as agricultural fairs, farmer study tours,community run newsletters and bulletins, and communitymedia, such as radio, video or traditional media, where thecommunities have some levels of direct participation.

• To build knowledge utilisation capacities. Poorcommunities’ capacity to use knowledge should beenhanced, not just to support IFAD actions, but to enhanceother (non-funded) aspects of community livelihoods, andsocial and cultural organisation; and especially to help themand their organisations to tackle the structural factors thatunderpin their oppression, through social organisation andpartnership building, solidarity networks and ultimatelysocial movements. IFAD already engages in literacy andleadership programmes, and in social mobilisation actions.However, the potential of effective knowledge use, and ofthe use of media, is not exploited nearly as much as it mightbe and IFAD Projects should place a higher emphasis on this.

TeleCommons Development Group (2000a)Rural Access to Information andCommunication Technologies: The Challengefor Africa

Despite high demand for ICT services in Africa, and a growingtelecommunications market, rural access to basic servicesremains a major concern. DFID UK and the World BankInformation for Development Program (infoDEV)commissioned this critical analysis of recently available research

and data on rural access to ICTs to generate concreterecommendations for action. These recommendations aredesigned to be presented to the ‘soon to be created’ AfricanConnection Secretariat (ACS) – a regional, African-led andmanaged initiative, to harmonise improvements ininfrastructure and management of telecommunications andinformation technology across countries.

Suggestions for core principles to guide the work of the ACSinclude recognition and promotion of:• the need for open and progressive government agendas to

facilitate rural telecom access;• the need for liberalised and regulated telecommunications

environments as a prerequisite for improving rural ICTaccess across the continent and catalysing profitable ruraltelecom services;

• the important role the Secretariat can play in meetingdecision-makers’ needs for ICT sensitisation and education;

• ensuring that rural ICT access programmes are built ondemand-driven and appropriate technologies;

• utilising the strengths of both new and traditional media toenable the greatest dissemination and sharing of information,and involving traditional media in ICT advocacy;

• enabling environments for creative, multi-stakeholderpartnerships focused on rural ICT access solutions;

• full and active participation of women and youth in ruralICT initiatives;

• capacity-building for the operators and users of rural ICTs;• encouraging the sharing of knowledge related to rural ICT

successes and failures.

Recommendations for immediate action include theidentification and promotion of rural market opportunities.Secondary steps include: development of a dynamic rural ICTtoolkit to provide recommended basic standards and steps forrural ICT project initiatives; establishment of a rural ICT fund;and convening of a conference to present the outputs of ICTdemand studies. Ongoing steps include: options for sensitisationand education on ICT infrastructure and policies for ruralconnectivity; maintaining and updating the Rural AccessInventory; encourage African telecom sector reform; encouragestronger ICT evaluation and dissemination techniques andpractices; and integrate micro-credit programmes with ruraltelecom operators.

The following research is recommended:• tactics to overcome policy and regulatory obstacles to rural

ICT investments;• case study examples of nations which undertook the

construction of cross-boundary telecom networks;• to identify successful technologies in rural Africa;• to assess market demand for rural ICTs;• focus on tactics to attract new rural telecom service entrants;• focus on the impacts of ICTs on rural African society and

culture;• to identify effective approaches to ICT awareness building

at the local level;• focus on determining what forms of multi-sector

partnership are working for rural ICT initiatives;• to identify the role of micro-credit in creating locally owned

and operated rural ICT business;


60

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

• focus on gender and universal access, and on youth andrural ICT initiatives;

• focus on improving the role of women and youth in ruralICT initiatives;

• focus on how evaluations of rural ICT initiatives canmeaningfully assess and monitor gender-related issues.

TeleCommons Development Group (2000b)Internet Use and Diagnostic Study – EastAfrica

Use of the Internet to support innovation in agriculturalextension has been a recurring topic in the European Donors’Neuchâtel Initiative meetings since it started in 1995, but donorrepresentatives and experts have struggled with how thismodern information and communication technology shouldbe used to support innovation in extension practice. Thisdiagnostic study looks in detail at the context and meansthrough which modern information and communicationtechnology could be used to support innovation in agriculturalextension and rural development practice in East Africa (itcontains three specific country reports for Kenya, Uganda,and Tanzania).

The IT diagnostic study forms part of the Linked LocalLearning (LLL) process which emerged as a response to helpingfarmers, NGOs, government ministries, departments anddonors deal with the massive changes being imposed on thedistrict and village levels of their society through policies ofdecentralisation. LLL’s aim is to assist changing roles andresponsibilities of different actors involved in natural resourcemanagement, and to continue to develop the capacities offarmers. This enhanced capacity sets the stage for buildingeffective demand by farmers on government research andextension services. It also sets the stage for handing overresponsibility to local actors for every stage of the projectcycle, from design through to evaluation. The difference thatLLL offers to traditional approaches to direct communicationlinkages with farmers is that LLL intends to work with existing,community-based organisations. Implicit in the objective ofstrengthening the linkages among the different levels of actorsinvolved in the LLL approach is the concept of enhancedcommunication processes. International Support Group of theNetherlands, on behalf of CTA commissioned TDG toexamine the potential which exists for integrating ICTs intoexisting communication systems in the three LLL pilotcountries.

The telecommunication environments in all three countrieswere found to be optimal for the kind of work proposed andenvisioned in the report. Internet service providers andtelecommunications operators, both mobile and fixed line, arevery quickly placing rural communities and areas in contactwith one another that did not have such connectivity before.The recommended overall approach emphasises coordinatinga country-specific communication planning workshop tosensitise the LLL stakeholders on the importance of utilisingthe many different forms of communication media availableto them and ensure they understand the concepts behind theLLL-IT network. It is also important for them not to championthe use of these technologies to share information and

knowledge among one another in a manner that has untilnow been impossible, but to integrate these electronic mediawith the more established non-electronic media currentlybeing used throughout the region. Establishing an effectiveLLL-IT Network on any scale requires more than justproviding stakeholders with a fax machine, a telephone or anemail account. It requires commitment and a sense ofownership on the part of the stakeholders to ensure that theoverall system that they are involved with is relevant, meetstheir needs and encourages not only information acquisitionbut also information input from the users.

Thomson, A.M. (2000) Sustainable LivelihoodsApproaches at Policy Level

An SL-friendly policy process would, as discussed in this paper,allow for much greater participation in the process of settingpriorities and formulating overall policy structure. Howeverthe nature of this participation and its relevance to the policyprocess is likely to vary according to the policy area concerned.In some cases, particularly for macro policies, the concerns ofthe poor have to be reconciled with the need for aneconomically sustainable macro-environment, and the demandsof lending agencies. In other cases, countries may have signedup to international conventions that, in theory at any rate,define some of the aspects of policy choice.

Three types of policy are described: macro policies; publicprovision of services; and infrastructure and institutionalreforms. These are intended to be taken as illustrative, ratherthan exclusive. For macro policies it is unlikely that eithercommunities or CSOs can, or arguably should, be involveddirectly in decision-making, but access to this process shouldbe ensured for lobbying purposes. Monitoring impact onlivelihoods, particularly by national bodies and through CSOs,is also an important element, to ensure that policy analystsand decision-makers consider the interests of the poor.

The paper notes that an SL approach to poverty reductioncan change our perspective at the policy level in a number ofdifferent ways:1. At a very fundamental level, an SL analysis may improve

analysts’ understanding of how existing policy, and theresulting institutions and structures, affect the livelihoodpossibilities of the poor. In particular, analysis of experienceat the micro-level may help identify important micro-macrolinkages.

2. SL analysis can provide a common framework and languagefor analysts and policy-makers from different sectors. Insome ways, it could be argued that the development of SLanalysis is analogous to Sen’s development of the entitlementapproach in food security. When Sen’s work was firstpublished some analysts argued that it contained nothingnew and that good analysts took all the important elementsof his theory into account anyway. However, thepresentation of these in a generally recognised analyticalframework broadened out discussion and analysis on theissue in an extremely productive manner.

3. Similarly the adoption of SL terminology may improvecommunications and broaden out the agenda for povertyreduction.

61

Appendix 1D

ocu

men

t Sum

maries

4. The more an SL approach underlies the collection of dataon poverty, both case study data and survey data, the betterthe quality of information flowing up to the policy-makers.The better policy-makers’ understanding of the diversityand complexity of livelihood opportunities facing the poor,the more likely it is that policy choices will improve.

5. If the implications of the SL approach are carried to theirlogical outcome, then the focus should be not just on policyanalysis and policy choice, but on the policy process.Governments have to commit themselves to opening upthe policy process at all levels to participation by allstakeholders, and in particular, community-basedorganisations and representative national NGOs. There area variety of ways in which participation could be introduced.Policy and plans can be built from the grassroots up, insome areas policy-making can be decentralised, and civilsociety organisations can be represented on executive andadvisory bodies.

6. Policy implementation should also be opened up toparticipation by stakeholders. For example, whenestablishing a Medium term expenditure framework topublic finance management, participation can be built inat the level of setting targets and monitoring performance.

7. Civil society organisations should also be encouraged andassisted to develop appropriate capacity and skills toundertake effective lobbying to force relevant issues ontothe policy agenda.

The fundamental question, for both governments and donors,is does an SL approach make it easier or more effective toaddress the issue of poverty reduction, or does it simply providea different slant on an intractable problem? And if it doesprovide a practical approach to improving poverty reductionpolicy, in which of the areas outlined above will governmentand/or donors get the greatest return for focusing their efforts?Is the policy process so interlinked with policy content thatresources should be spread over both?

At present there is insufficient experience to answer any ofthese questions. The answers may well be different for differentcountries. Certain approaches may simply not be feasible ingiven political contexts. It will also depend on the timeframebeing considered. Thomson argues that the best possibility forachieving a sustainable improvement in livelihoods policy isto focus on increasing civil society and stakeholder participationin the policy process. This is, however, a medium to long termstrategy. Some would argue that in the short-term, improvedunderstanding of the impact of policy on sustainable livelihoodscould give better returns through informing policy-makers.

If the rationale for increased emphasis on stakeholderparticipation in policy is accepted, this has implications forthe focus of external assistance. More effort should be putinto improving capacity and access for grassroots andcommunity-based organisations, as well as small-scale unions.Such organisations should be encouraged and assisted to carryout their own analysis of livelihood opportunities and then touse the results as a basis for influencing policy, throughrepresentation and lobbying.

Finally, one of the problems noted by Thomson in writingthis paper was accessing documentation on recent efforts to

increase participation in the policy process. Missions reporton policy papers and policy analysis, but process usually has towait for a number of years until the publication of studies byacademic political scientists. If our understanding is to improveof what works and what does not work in encouragingparticipation, then more effort has to go into documentingprocess.

UNDP (2001) Human Development Report2001: Making Technologies Work for HumanDevelopment

In this report UNDP charts the shift from the industrial ageto the network age. Some of the defining characteristics ofthe network age are the current emphasis on scientific researchand innovation, including rapid expansion of the possibilitiesof the Internet; the changing nature of production towardsmore investment in research and development and e-business;a growing diaspora demanding accessible information andcommunication technologies; and a shift towards advocacybased on the globalisation of civil society concerns.

UNDP assert that technology can no longer simply be viewedas a reward of development. Rather, it is now a critical toolfor development. They therefore examine countries’ technicalcapacity as a key factor in their development opportunities.In order to map the scale of technological development, theyhave constructed a new approach using a TechnologyAchievement Index. The Technology Achievement Indexassesses a country’s ability to create new technologies; its useof recent innovations; its basic communications infrastructure;and its level of human skills. The index ranks countries intofour categories: leaders, potential leaders, dynamic adopters,and marginalised.

Warren, P. (2001) Survey at-a-distance onAssessment of Stakeholder Participation inFAO Field Programme

The preparation of this report was one of the activities of theTask Group on Analysis and Evaluation of FAO’s InformalWorking Group on Participatory Approaches and Methodsto Support Sustainable Livelihoods and Food Security. It isbased upon an email survey carried out from August toOctober 2000, with the aim of eliciting the views (andexperience) of selected FAO regional and field staff onmonitoring and evaluation of stakeholder participation inFAOs field programmes.

The email survey aimed to address six open-ended questions:• Who are the stakeholders involved in different types of

FAO assisted field projects with a significant participatorydimension? Which roles are these social and institutionalstakeholders playing (expected to play) in these projects?

• What methods are being used to facilitate suchparticipation?

• Which type of costs such participation entails for eachstakeholder involved?

• What are the benefits of participation for different types ofstakeholders?


62

Docu

men

t Sum

mar

ies

• What are the effects (actual and/or expected) of suchparticipation on project (programme) performance?

• What methods are being (could be) used to assess (monitorand/or evaluate) different aspects of the participatory process(i.e. degree and quality of participation; costs and benefits;effects on project/programme implementation andoutcomes)?

The main findings of the research suggest that:• Participatory processes are described by key-informants as

the result of a complex interaction among a variety ofprimary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders. More than25 different stakeholder types were identified. Primarystakeholders include community and societal actors inprojects and programmes. Secondary stakeholders includelocal governance institutions and ‘interface’ institutions suchas technical services, NGOs, private sector organisations,and (sometimes) the project itself. Tertiary stakeholdersinclude national-level development agencies, nationalNGOs, policy-makers and international support agencies.The report outlines the roles played by each stakeholdergroup in the participatory process.

• Relatively consolidated methods for stakeholderparticipation (e.g. Participatory Rural Appraisal or FarmerField School packages) are almost always used incombination with common sense means such as consensus-building practice, social communication, and adoption of aparticipatory style of management. 14 main types ofmethods/means for stakeholder participation are identifiedand described. However findings suggest that the overallparticipatory methodology adopted by the projects surveyedto facilitate stakeholder participation cannot be reduced tothe application of a single standardised method or itinerary.Rather a particular site-specific blend of these differentmeans is developed (sometimes in a very creative manner)to fit the particular social and institutional setting, and thepolitical context within which the participatory processtakes place.

• Project/programme-borne direct costs are only part of theoverall cost of participatory processes. For pr imarystakeholders especially opportunity costs are of majorsignificance. Intangible costs or losses (of a social and politicalnature) are also to be considered. A brief description of theidentified cost types is presented, the different costs (direct,indirect and intangible) borne by primary, secondary andtertiary stakeholders are then classified.

World Bank (1999) Knowledge forDevelopment: World Development Report1998/99

The report on Knowledge for Development highlights therole of international development institutions as intermediariesin the transfer of knowledge, and the need to manageknowledge as a global public good. The authors observe thatrevolutions in communication have often been at the centreof societal changes. In most developing countries, however,the use of new information and communication technologiesis still limited. There are several reasons for this, such as lowincome, inadequate human capital, and weak competitive andregulatory environments. Sociocultural differences also play a

part, since all people tend to adopt new technology mainlywhen they trust it. As a result, it is important that newtechnology is introduced through local and familiar channels.Community street theatres might be one way of doing this.Another reason why poor farmers may be slow to adopt newtechnologies is risk-aversion. Farmers in risky environmentstend to choose a safer, though less profitable, portfolio of assets.This must be taken into consideration when attempting tointroduce new technology.

Zjip, W. (1994) Improving the Transfer and Useof Agricultural Information: A Guide toInformation Technology

In this paper for the World Bank, Zijp gives a few examples ofthe role information technology (IT) can play in ruraldevelopment. While they are not intended to suggest that ITis a panacea for solving development problems, theydemonstrate some of the ways IT can be used to benefit ruralcommunities. The objective of this paper is to enhanceawareness and understanding among World Bank staff,borrowers and consultants of the immediate and futurecontributions IT can make to agricultural extension. The paperaims to provide practical and easily accessible informationabout IT applications to task managers dealing with ruraldevelopment. It is therefore neither a philosophical study oninformation in society, nor an essay on details of thetechnologies themselves.

Based on informal reviews of World Bank staff needs, thispaper is presented in two parts. The first part of the paperdiscusses the major issues related to the use of IT in ruraldevelopment and shows some of the ways IT has been andcan be used in developing countries. It seeks to contribute tothe understanding of the key factors needed to ensure effectiveuse of IT in a developing country context, as well as the pitfallsto be avoided. It also aims to galvanise interest in concreteactions the Bank can take to realise the potential benefits ofIT for rural development. The second part of the paper consistsof 10 annexes, each of which focuses on a particular technologythat can have immediate importance and value for Bankprojects. Each annex is produced as a separate, stand-alonedocument, providing concrete information on the technologyunder examination. The aim of the annexes is to providepractitioners and Bank staff with a minimum of practicalinformation which they can incorporate into Bank projects,which enables them to write terms-of-reference for IT relatedstudies, and to make it easy to find further information on theparticular technology. [Introduction taken from paper]

Documents

Livelihoods Approaches to Information and Communication in ... · Executive Summary vi Key Policy Conclusions vii 1. Introduction 1 2. Sustainable Livelihoods and the Role of Information