Summary Report of the
Forum on the
Application of Information Technologies
For Small Growers
Summary Report of the
Forum on the
Application of Information Technologies
For Small Growers
Summary Report of the
Forum on the
Application of Information Technologies
For Small Growers
“Organizing Small Growers Worldwide to Exploit Modern Information Technologies: Meeting the Challenges of Agricultural and Forestry Intensification”
A special Forum held as part of the
Second International Conference on Geospatial Information in
Agriculture and Forestry[1]
Sunday, 9 January 2000, Epcotâ World Showcase,
Lake Buena Vista, Florida
“As technology moves
forward, the gap widens between those who are part of the wired world and those
who are not.” – United
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, speaking at the opening of the Third
United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,
19 July 1999.
The Forum on
the Application of Information Technologies for Small Growers was a
special, one-day event of the Second
International Conference on Geospatial Information in Agriculture and Forestry
held 10-12 January 2000 at Walt Disney World’s Coronado Springs Resort, Lake
Buena Vista, Florida.[2] The Forum objective was to have an open
dialogue on how collective action and access to modern information technologies
can enable “resource-poor” growers to better capture emerging opportunities for
agricultural and forestry intensification while also protecting environmental
and land quality. The opportunities are
considerable, such as increased incomes and elevated social status of local
growers; improved cash flow through local economies; better environmental
management and improved land quality; and the creation of new markets for
agribusinesses and information technology companies.
Thirty-six
participants with interests and experience from diverse organizations and
regions of the world participated in the Forum (see Attachment A for a list of
the participants). The Forum was open
to all interested parties, and it attracted representatives from grower
associations, not-for-profit organizations, universities, international life
science companies and chemical producers, geospatial data and technology
providers, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), The World Bank, the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO), the Consultative
Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), media organizations, and
consultants to the agricultural community.
Mr. R. Christopher Schroeder,[3]
moderator for the Forum, introduced the Forum using the quotation from United
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and opened the discussion by outlining the
Forum objectives (see Attachment B for a copy of Mr. Schroeder’s viewgraphs and
Attachment C for a copy of the Forum Handout).
·
Raise
awareness of new Information Technology (IT) potentials and applications for
resource poor farmers
·
Assist
organizations such as The World Bank, USAID, UNFAO, and USDA understand what IT
options there are to better focus initiatives
·
Stimulate
thinking about how producer organizations might participate in preventing a
widening gap of IT adoption/benefit between resource rich and poor farmers
·
Identify
demonstration projects that could be funded by private partnerships
·
Identify
methods to continue to build interest in, and commitment to, the objectives of
the Forum
Using a Causal Loop Diagram to illustrate his point,
Mr. Schroeder expressed that the Forum intended to explore the potential for
information and communications technologies to help small, resource-poor growers
increase productivity and decrease negative environmental impacts in
agriculture. He asked the participants
to consider opportunities to promote future sustainable agricultural
intensification through shared access to information technologies to create the
necessary economies of scale. Mr.
Schroeder challenged everyone to think of how to get the business community
involved and to identify mechanisms for engaging the private sector, growers,
farmer associations, governments, and multilaterals in public-private
partnerships, which may improve access to appropriate information technology
solutions.
Mr.
Schroeder outlined two key parameters for the Forum discussions – the
definition of “resource-poor” farmers and the range of information technologies
to be considered in the Forum.
·
Small
farmers
·
Farmers
without access to current technology
·
Farmers
without knowledge base to compete in changing world
·
Farmers
who have the potential to cause environmental problems
The
Forum encompassed a broad range of information and communications technologies
and examined how these technologies particularly apply to small farm
agriculture.
·
Geographic
Information System (GIS)
·
Global
Positioning System (GPS)
·
Remote
Sensing
·
Weather
Forecasting
·
Production
and Farm Management software (for example, Accounting, Farm Operations, Field
Data Collection, Agricultural Mapping)
·
Communication
Technologies
·
Internet
and e-commerce
·
Decision
Support Systems
·
Database
Management, Warehousing, and Enterprise Systems
·
Collaboration
and other Knowledge Management Tools
·
Distance
Learning
Three
individuals were invited to present their experiences illustrating how
information and communication technologies are being applied in innovative ways
to impact small farm agriculture. Dr.
Frank Tugwell[4] of Winrock
International established some context for the Forum by describing the state of
information technology adoption throughout the world. Janis Pruss[5]
of Penn State University and Dr. John Corbett[6]
of Texas A&M University presented two successful case studies where
information technology solutions have been successfully applied to “resource
poor” grower communities.
Dr. Tugwell provided a brief overview of Winrock’s
mission and activities, and he then illustrated the extent of the “digital gap”
throughout the world (see Attachment D for a copy of Dr. Tugwell’s
viewgraphs). Noting that 99% of all
investments in information technology solutions is concentrated in just
fifty-five countries around the globe, Dr. Tugwell expressed the concern that
information technologies will only help least-cost producers strengthen their
position. This advantage only worsens
the plight of small, overseas farmers who find themselves unable to compete in
the global marketplace.
Ms.
Pruss discussed the work she and others are doing in Pennsylvania to bring
low-cost, farm production management tools to small growers through nonprofit
crop management associations (see Attachment E for a copy of Ms. Pruss’s
viewgraphs and the text of her presentation).
Using GIS and relational database tools developed at Penn State
University, consultants and scouts employed by associations of growers are
providing small growers with a broad range of crop management services. Ms. Pruss recognized the recent introduction
of corporate-based commercial information systems, but noted that these
initiatives are focused on the larger farms, and she made an argument for
keeping (free) information access at the small farmer level.
Following
Ms. Pruss’ presentation, an open discussion commenced around several points
related to her talk. One discussion
point related to the ownership of data and the potential for the Government to
utilize (through extension programs) farmers’ data to enforce regulations. Ms. Pruss made the point that in the
Pennsylvania programs, the data are being used to help set policy in a
cooperative manner.
A
second discussion involved the costs of starting up the Pennsylvania program
and the variables that enable the program to sustain itself. Although the startup investment was modest,
the university commitment of personnel and equipment was essential to get the
program started. A participant
suggested that an alternative funding mechanism might be tax credits that most
states have the authority to use. At
$6-10 per acre, another participant noted that the price of the technology
services was economically competitive with commercial services. Ms. Pruss stated that cost sharing among the
growers was key to sustainability of the program. Furthermore, growers were now beginning to realize economic
benefit from the service, particularly in the reduction of fertilizer usage.
Lastly,
Ms. Pruss noted that partnering with industry remained one of the more
significant challenges. Industry
continues to present barriers to the continued success of the crop management
associations. Industry wants to provide
the information technologies and wants the University to decouple from the crop
management associations. Furthermore,
industry is reluctant to share its information with the University-led effort.
Dr.
Corbett made a presentation on the Almanac Characterization Tool (ACT)
developed at the Texas A&M Blackland Research Center (see Attachment F for
a copy of Dr. Corbett’s viewgraphs).
Operating under the premise that standard GIS solutions are too hard to
use, the ACT is designed to simplify access to the relevant information needed
by different users. Preloaded with
existing regional or country-level data sets, the ACT features tools that
enable a user to ask a refined question of the information system and to
“drill-down” to access the detailed information or models behind the
answers. Dr. Corbett noted that GIS
technologies can be appropriately applied to achieve efficiency, improve
effectiveness, and create equity.
Following
Dr. Corbett’s presentation, a discussion took place regarding a need for
accurate, high-resolution elevation data for many projects around the world,
e.g., centimeter-level terrain information in Bangladesh.
After the invited presentations, the Forum
participants were divided into three focus groups – each group focusing on a
subset of the key information technologies.
One group focused on Geospatial Technologies including Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), Global Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing, and
weather forecasting solutions. A second
group focused on Production Management Technologies including software tools
for accounting, farm operations, field data collection, agricultural mapping,
and Decision Support Systems (DSS). The
final group focused on Communication and Information Technologies including the
Internet and e-commerce, distance learning, collaboration and knowledge
management, database management, warehousing, and enterprise systems. Within the assigned technology area, each
focus group was asked to identify significant issues facing small growers and
to share personal experiences on how specific information technology solutions
have been applied to the “resource-poor” community of growers.
Participants
in the Geospatial Technologies focus group observed that it was not appropriate
or even possible to take these technologies directly to individual growers due
to many factors. A more appropriate
strategy is to enable access to selected technologies through groups or
associations of growers. One model used
successfully in Peru grants communal access to tools and then uses production
competitions amongst growers to encourage use of the tools.
The
participants in the Production Management Technologies focus group also
determined that aggregation of growers into teams was critical. This focus group viewed this class of
technologies as a key enabler of market power for growers – strengthening their
negotiations, eliminating middlemen, and optimizing the timing of product
sales. The group identified crop
selection tools, practical remote sensing applications, and the integration of
different technologies into a seamless environment as solutions requiring
further development.
The
Communication and Information Technologies focus group established a need to
facilitate communications to “resource-poor” growers through existing,
traditional methods as well as local information service centers. The group noted that successful insertions
of new technology are based upon a good understanding of the drivers for the
information.
There
was general agreement amongst the Forum participants on two points: (1) appropriate application of information
technologies can help “resource-poor” growers increase their incomes and other
opportunities; and (2) helping these growers has the greatest impact on
environmental issues.
Following the Focus Group session, the Forum participants were brought back together to identify impediments that stand in the way of bringing the various information technologies to small growers. These impediments were originally grouped by the same three subsets of the key information technologies, but in the course of this discussion, the participants quickly discovered that many impediments were common to each of the three technology areas.
Impediments to the Adoption
of Information Technologies
Timing of ubiquitous Internet connectivity
throughout the world
Access to available bandwidth (in competition
with other applications)
Price of connectivity
Language barrier to worldwide acceptance of
Internet
Common
language
Scientific
language
Measurement
units
Impediments to the Adoption of Information Technologies, cont.
Y2K absorbed IT budgets in many agencies
What
if the equivalent amount of [Y2K] funding was applied to this issue?
Better networking needed to avoid duplication
of efforts and to leverage investments
Much of available software is built for
capital-intensive precision agriculture solutions
Better tools needed to interpret data at the
farm level
Better tools needed to enable awareness and
access to markets
Tools lack user friendliness - intelligent
user interfaces are needed
Time required to build databases
Amount of recordkeeping in US farmland is low
Need for immediate results (to convince
farmers of benefits)
Risk of adopting new practices
Difficulty in shifting to other crops due to
the investment in equipment
Lack of market response locks producer into
specific production and markets
Lack of effective farm organizations
Low level of farmer formal education in some
countries
Lack of farmer training
Lack of training and equipment for
intermediaries, extension services, and support people
Willingness to share information
Willingness to use information created by
others
Impact on in-country power base
Information is not easy to get to
Or, it is the wrong information
Tools are needed to interpret the information
gained by the IT solutions
Lack of relevant research on small farms
Policy issue – what if Internet isn’t allowed
into a country?
Denial of access to Internet
Policy issue – concern over one-meter remote
sensing data
Government control of information
Sense of futility – are small (US) growers
simply not viable any longer?
Those who can make investments get further
ahead
Family and community values
Are there known cultural barriers to using IT
solutions, e.g., maps?
Rush to judgement by the media and lack of
accurate reporting
Input supply company biases
After the discussion on impediments, the group
directed its attention to defining opportunities and needs for investment,
research, and partnering. Several participants
suggested that relatively inexpensive pilot or demonstration projects should be
established to illustrate the potential benefits to small growers from the use
of information and communications technologies. These “on-the-ground” pilots should be established in a small
number (3 to 4) of locations around the world and engage a range of key
institutions. Two ongoing programs
within the UNFAO and The World Bank were suggested as potential homes for such
pilots to provide the necessary project structure:
-
UNFAO
special program in food security on small farms
-
The
World Bank irrigation and drainage program
Mr.
Schroeder then repeated his earlier challenge and asked the group – What does
it take to get industry involved? The
consensus opinion was that any effort to support the community of
“resource-poor” growers has to be based upon public/private partnerships. It was noted that both sides of this
partnership are building essential elements of the critical information
technology infrastructure that will be required, and consideration must be
given to using this existing infrastructure.
Private
companies and their investments are driving much of the innovation. Several major agribusinesses are developing
a number of Internet-based information sources and market analysis tools. Meanwhile, government entities such as the
USDA and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are developing significant
agricultural resource libraries and Internet-searchable data banks around the
world that could be better utilized. An
additional factor in the partnership equation is that much of the science and
knowledge base in agriculture exists within a local context. Perhaps key to the success of any
public/private partnership is to build on local, homegrown efforts spearheaded
by knowledgeable, credible champions within individual communities (see
Attachment G for examples of initiatives underway in Idaho, Michigan,
California, and Georgia).
The
challenge is to bring these different groups – private, public, and local growers
and extension personnel – together to build the required infrastructure and
information technology solutions in a collaborative, cost-sharing manner. Furthermore, it is important to create
multidisciplinary teams to share information and knowledge across country
borders.
However,
a significant question remains – what are the motivating factors for private
agribusiness companies to offer their infrastructure to “resource-poor” growers
and NGOs? Is it that these companies
see the long-term potential of future markets yet to be developed? One participant observed that aside from
their internal manufacturing processes, many major agribusinesses have yet to
establish their information technology strategies, and that agribusinesses face
many uncertainties in this regard. What
will agribusinesses do with these information technology solutions? Where will they attach their resources? What are the investment dollars needed? How are the sustainment dollars
derived? How do they get their
investment dollars back?
Another
participant suggested that non-agriculture companies, e.g., telecommunication
companies, could ultimately provide much of the information technology
infrastructure needed by the agricultural community. However, the opportunity needs to be presented to those
companies.
If
participants are interested, there are several related UNFAO publications on
Information Technology. These documents
include a discussion of the “First Mile of Connectivity” for small growers in
developing countries. If you are
interested in one or more of these publications, please drop Dr. John Latham an
e-mail at john.latham@fao.org
along with your mailing address. The
following publications are available:
The First Mile of
Connectivity: Advancing Telecommunications for Rural Development through a
Participatory Communication Approach, D. Richardson and L. Paisley, editors, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1998.
Knowledge and Information
for Food Security in Africa: From Traditional Media to the Internet, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 1998.
The Internet and Rural and
Agriculture Development: An Integrated Approach, D. Richardson, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1997.
The
UNFAO Research Extension and Training Division, Sustainable Development
Department, has also provided an addendum to this Forum Summary Report (see
Attachment H). This report identifies
several UNFAO case studies that will be of interest to the Forum participants.
The Forum concluded with participant expressions of
high interest in continuing the dialogue initiated at the Forum. This interest in continuing the dialogue was
reinforced in post-Forum e-mails from several of the participants.
Participants
recognized the need for both “champions” to facilitate ongoing dialogue as well
as sponsors to finance additional meetings, forums, or other means to communicate,
e.g., Internet-based discussion groups.
Following the Forum, several participants discussed the benefits and
implementation of an Internet-based collaboration environment that could be
used to continue building interest in, and commitment to, the objectives of the
Forum, including developing the partnerships to deliver future demonstration
projects. Individuals or organizations
interested in helping to develop this concept should contact Roger Reinhold at rein@erim-int.com.
It
was suggested that the discussion sphere be expanded to include other key
groups as either participants or sponsors such as:
-
the
USDA small farms commission
-
returning
Peace Corps volunteers
-
agribusiness
Chief Information Officer conference
-
small
farmer groups and associations
Despite
the interest in continuing the dialogue, several participants cautioned that it
was important that the group first focus on a specific vision or goal, perhaps
with a five- to ten-year horizon, as well as the specific propositions it
wanted to advocate. In particular, the
group identified two key issues to be addressed at some future time:
1.
The
Forum discussions made clear that the term “resource-poor” has a different
connotation to different people. Within
the broad concept of “resource-poor” growers, there is a wide disparity between
the US small farmers and the very poor farmers of the developing world. Many felt that this disparity was so
significant that the two target grower groups ought to be addressed separately,
that is, the information technology solutions or application strategies that
make sense for the US small grower are likely to be inappropriate for the
developing world’s poor farmers. Even
so, the participants felt that it was important to get initiatives focusing on
either of the two groups to exchange ideas and results.
2.
There
is a unique need and opportunity for a collaborative effort between
agribusinesses and the public and non-profit sector to jointly address the
challenges of global food production and distribution. However, as expressed in the Forum, this
does not seem to be a natural union and it will take a good deal of hard work
to accomplish. A focused and open
dialogue related to private-public partnerships needs to occur between the
essential parties.
A.
Forum
Attendance List
B.
Mr.
R. Chris Schroeder’s Forum Outline Presentation
C.
Forum
Notes Handout
D.
Dr.
Frank Tugwell’s Presentation on Winrock International
E.
Ms.
Janis Pruss’ Presentation and Text on “Information Technologies Implemented by
Crop Management Associations” in Pennsylvania
F.
Dr.
John Corbett’s Presentation and Handout on the Almanac Characterization Tool
G.
USDA
Handouts
Idaho OnePlan
Michigan Net-21/Michigan 1 Plan
California Yolo County RCD/NRCS Natural Resources Information
Center
Small Farm Survival Project for the Southern Coastal
Plain
H.
Follow-on
Report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Research Extension and Training Division, Sustainable Development Department
|
NAME |
ORGANIZATION |
PHONE/FAX |
EMAIL |
|
Ahlrichs,
John S. |
Rooster.com |
612-886-7455/ 952-886-7366 |
|
|
Alex,
Gary |
World
Bank |
202-458-5776/ 202-522-3246 |
|
|
Amerman,
C. Richard |
USDA/ARS
|
301-504-4634/ 301-504-2631 |
|
|
Bain,
Oakford G. |
American
Cyanamid |
973-683-3044/ 973-683-4047 |
|
|
Banks,
Peter M. |
Veridian
Corporation |
734-994-1200/ 734-662-3384 |
|
|
Chadwick,
Bruce P. |
Winrock
International |
703-525-9430
x625/ 703-525-1744 |
|
|
Corbett,
John D. |
Texas
A&M Univ. System, Blackland Research Center |
254-774-6059/ 254-774-6001 |
|
|
Cullen,
Nancy |
Monsanto |
407-523-0898 |
|
|
Gonzalez,
Fernando |
World
Bank |
202-458-1382/ 202-522-3306 |
|
|
Groves,
Paula |
Farm
Progress |
630-462-2870/ 630-588-2081 |
|
|
Hatfield,
Jerry L. |
USDA-ARS,
National Soil Tilth Laboratory |
515-294-5723/ 515-294-8125 |
|
|
Hildebrand,
Peter E. |
University
of Florida |
352-392-5830x436/ 352-392-8634 |
|
|
Humiston,
Glenda |
USDA/NRE |
202-720-7173/ 202-720-4732 |
|
|
Krill,
Tom |
Vantage
Point Network |
970-266-4621/ 970-266-4699 |
|
|
Latham,
John S. |
UNFAO |
39
06 5705 4026/ 39
06 5705 3369 |
|
|
Lochman,
Allan |
Monsanto |
407-207-8094 |
|
|
Lustyan,
Daniel B. |
AG
Paradigm Consulting, LLC |
559-322-9077/ 559-322-9121 |
|
|
Metz,
Sally G. |
AG
Business Consultants |
636-519-7724/ 636-537-9897 |
|
|
Moore,
Jeff |