Required citation:
Lie, R., Acunzo, M., Cardey, S., van de Fliert, E., Tirol, M.S., Witteveen, L. & Samonte, P., eds. 2024. Collaborative change: Towards inclusive rural communication services. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2712en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-5-139359-8
© FAO, 2024

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Cover photographs: see list on the last page
Design and layout: studio Pietro Bartoleschi

Contents

Acknowledgements

Foreword

Abbreviations

Introduction

Inclusive rural communication services: paving the road towards collaborative change

1. Research efforts and partnerships in communication for rural development and social change

2. Advancing rural communication services

3. Addressing key rural communication services challenges

4. Communication and collaborative change

References

PART I. Communication and collective action

Overview

Chapter 1

Developing rural communication services: prototype testing of a digital farmer field school in Indonesia

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Living lab Enrekang

4. Design of the DFFS Enrekang

5. Digital farmer field school prototype testing

6. Results

7. Conclusion and way forward

References

Chapter 2

Rural radio and multistakeholder participation: the role of digital technology

1. Introduction

2. Cultural governance and the start of community radio in Upi Municipality

3. Data collection

4. Incorporation of digital technology by DXUP FM and its role in citizen participation

5. Benefits and challenges of DXUP-FM’s adoption of digital media

6. Conclusion

References

Chapter 3

Co-Innovation towards commercial family farming in Timor-Leste: insights from the Redi KAMODI model

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical underpinnings

3. Developing and piloting the Redi KAMODI model

4. Redi KAMODI – a community-based, cattle-production innovation platform

5. Redi KAMODI pilot and expansion phases

6. Assessing achievements and impact of Redi KAMODI

7. Redi KAMODI achievements and impacts

8. Redi KAMODI as a co-innovation platform

9. Redi KAMODI as a rural communication services system

10. Conclusion

References

Chapter 4

Weaving people together: perspectives from an agricultural innovation system diagnostic in Mpumalanga, South Africa

1. Introduction

2. Setting the focus, boundaries and framework for the study

3. Methods

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

References

Chapter 5

Supporting innovation uptake in agriculture: group model building as a rural communication process

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

References

PART II. Applying an RCS approach to address inequalities

1. Overview

Chapter 6

Digital agri-extension for all: an inclusivity analysis of the Philippines’ Digital Farmers Program

1. Introduction

2. Agricultural extension and the digital divide in the Philippines

3. Theoretical underpinnings

4. Methodology

5. Results

6. Discussion

7. Conclusion

References

Chapter 7

ICT platforms as value-chain coordinators for smallholders in Uganda

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

3. Methodology

4. Results

5. Discussion and implications

6. Conclusions

References

Chapter 8

Community art and communication: crafting sustainable landscape stewardship in Terai Arc, Nepal

1. Introduction

2. Rural livelihood in the lowland Terai buffer zone

3. Facilitating community-based landscape stewardship through rural communication services

4. Discussion and conclusion

References

Chapter 9

Advancing innovation and social change: rural communication services and the multidimensional model for change

1. Rural communication services: framework and functions

2. The multidimensional model for change

3. Applying rural communication services in the multidimensional model for change

4. Conclusions

References

PART III. Enabling RCS: regulatory environment for community networks

Overview

Chapter 10

Kenya: Community networks framework for rural communication services

1. Introduction

2. Building an enabling environment

3. Community networks on the ground

4. Dynamics of change and conclusions

5. Conclusions

References

Chapter 11

Universal service fund as an RCS enabler: the Argentine process

1. Introduction

2. Developments, 1990 through 2018

3. Developments from 2019 to 2023

4. Dynamics of change and conclusions

References

Chapter 12

Civil society’s struggle towards an enabling environment for inclusive rural communication services: the case of Oaxaca and Puebla, México

1. Introduction

2. Building an enabling environment

3. Case studies

4. Dynamics of change and future strategies

Figures

Introduction

1. The RCS framework

2. Rural communication services in family farming

Chapter 1

1. Opening screen DFFS Enrekang v 1.0

2. DFFS prototype testing with the women’s farmer group Tombonan from Baroko village, in Baroko Subdistrict

Chapter 2

1. Screen capture of the page reach of DXUP-FM

2. Screen capture of audience reach of DXUP-FM

Chapter 4

1. Supply chain complexity matrix

Chapter 5

1. Group model building workshop with farmers with higher levels of education

2. Group model building as a learning process

A2.1. CLD: adoption of teat dipping

A2.2. CLD: adoption of record-keeping

A2.3. CLD: adoption of digitalization in dairy production and its impacts

Chapter 6

1. Rural communication services framework

Chapter 7

1. Coding structure

2. Market positioning of Farmgain Africa

3. Market positioning of the Kudu platform

4. Market positioning of the Ezy Agric app

5. Market positioning of M-Omulimisa

6. Pathways for ICT platforms in improving the use of agricultural-input technologies by family farmers

Chapter 8

1. Poster announcing the game and monkey actor card (prototype version)

2. Dynamics during and after playing the game

3. Community art workshop, Parsenipur

Tables

Chapter 1

1. Farmer’s information needs to be included in the DFFS Enrekang

Chapter 2

1. DXUP-FM’s daily programming

2. DXUP-FM’s Block time programming

Chapter 3

1. Redi KAMODI establishment and implementation from 2016 to 2021

Chapter 4

1. Actor categories and roles

2. Combined structural-functional framework

3. Study participants

4. Workshop participants

Chapter 5

1. Search terms used in the systematic literature review

2. Impact of the group model-building workshops at individual, group and organizational levels

A1.1. GMB workshops with farmers and multiple rural stakeholders

Chapter 6

1. Summary of the Digital Farmers Program assessment with programme implementers based on the principles of FAO’s rural communication services framework

2. Summary of the Digital Farmers Program assessment with farmers and their representatives, based on Helsper’s social relativity of digital exclusion

Chapter 7

1. Typology of information and communication technology platforms based on the market and intervention dimensions

2. Selection criteria for and case descriptions of information and communication technology platforms in Uganda

3. Case-study concepts used with key informants and smallholder farmers

4. Brief descriptions of key informants interviewed

5. Case comparison

Chapter 8

1. Community art workshops in Dalla and Parsenipur

2. Overview of the final poetry route with 15 banners

Chapter 9

9. Multidimensional model for change and rural communication services

Chapter 12

1. Income from Oaxaca 2G networks, 2017 and 2021

Acknowledgements

This publication is the result of an intense collaboration between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). In particular, the contributions of IAMCR’s Rural Communication Working Group (RUC) along with those of the universities associated with the Global Research Initiative for Rural Communication (GRI-RC) – The University of Queensland, Wageningen University & Research, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, the University of Guelph, the University of Reading and the University of the Philippines Los Baños – are gratefully acknowledged.

The chapters of the book have been edited by Rico Lie, Mario Acunzo, Sarah Cardey, Elske van de Fliert, Maria Stella Tirol, Loes Witteveen and Paoloregel Samonte. Special thanks are extended to Dianne Berest for the copy-editing. A final acknowledgment for the overall editorial coordination and supervision of the book goes to Mario Acunzo and Rico Lie.

Foreword

In recent years, communication has proven to be crucial for family farmers to deal with development challenges such as new market and employment conditions, climate change and environmental degradation, and emerging crises. Timely access to information through appropriate and accessible channels is fundamental for family farmers as they have to respond and adapt to the structural transformations occurring in rural areas. Communication processes and media are crucial not only to facilitate knowledge and information, but also to engage family farmers in policy dialogue and make their voices count.

Within this framework, participatory communication and learning approaches have a positive impact on family farmers’ capacity to take advantage of new development opportunities, including those offered by digital technologies. New services blending the use of local media, such as rural radio and low-cost information and communication technologies, including digital technologies, often contribute to more inclusive rural communication.

Collaborative change: Towards inclusive rural communication services is the result of the collaboration between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the International Association of Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), which jointly launched an award to sponsor research activities in the field of inclusive rural communication services (RCS).

The book addresses questions on how to tackle inequalities through rural communication processes, considering the bottlenecks, such as the lack of appropriation of digital solutions and the lack of suitable content. It also presents emerging trends and opportunities, highlighting the expansion of digital services through community networks and the policy impact of advocacy efforts promoted by community media and civil society organizations. Central to the book is the RCS framework, developed by FAO together with several of the universities affiliated to the IAMCR, which can be used to orient new types of communication services based on farmers’ needs. Today more than ever, there is a need for dedicated communication services that must be integrated into agricultural and family farming policies. This requires gathering evidence to orient the design and institutionalization of inclusive RCS and conducive policies, an effort to which this publication contributes.

Maurizio Martina
Deputy Director-General

Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations

Abbreviations

AET

agricultural education and training

AHERI

Africa Higher Education Research Institute

AIS

agricultural innovation system

ALIN

Arid Lands Information Network

APC

Association for Progressive Communications

ARSAT

Empresa Argentina de Soluciones Satelitales Sociedad Anónima (Argentine Satellite Solutions Company Ltd.)

ATI

Agricultural Training Institute

BARMM

Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

BCP

Bardia Conservation Program

CARC

Cumbre Argentina de Redes Comunitarias (Argentinian Community Networks Summit)

CBO

community-based organization

CLD

causal loop diagram

CNSP

Community Network Service Provider

ComDev

Communication for Development

COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019

DFFS

digital farmer field school

DFP

Digital Farmers Program

ENACOM

Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones (National Communications Entity)

ENTel

Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (National Telecommunications Company)

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FCCM

Forum on Communication and Community Media for Family Farming

FGD

focus group discussion

GMB

group model building

IAMCR

International Association for Media and Communication Research

ICT

information and communication technologies

IFT

Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (Federal Telecommunications Institute)

IMT

International Mobile Telecommunications

ISP

internet service provider

LTE

long-term evolution (network)

MAF

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

MASL

meters above sea level

MMC

multidimensional model for change

MoALM

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Management

MVNO

mobile virtual network operator

NGO

non-governmental organization

NTNC

National Trust for Nature Conservation

PRCA

Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal

RCS

rural communication services

REDES

Redes por la Diversidad, Equidad y Sustentabilidad A.C. (Networks for Diversity, Equity and Sustainability)

SRDE

social relativity of digital exclusion

TAL

Terai Arc Landscape

TIC

Telecomunicaciones Indígenas Comunitarias (Community Indigenous Telecommunications)

TVWS

TV white space

UCTT

Unión de Cooperatives Tosepan Titataniske (Tosepan Titataniske Union of Cooperatives)

ULF

Unified Licensing Framework

UNDFF

United Nations Decade of Family Farming

UNIMEN

Universitas Muhammadiyah Enrekang (Muhammadiyah Enrekang University)

USF

universal service fund

VARC

ValorAgregado – Acceso a Internet, Titulares de Redes Comunitarias (Value added internet services access, community networks)

Introduction

Inclusive rural communication services: paving the road towards collaborative change

Authors:

Mario Acunzo

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Italy

Rico Lie

Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

1. Research efforts and partnerships in communication for rural development and social change

This book presents innovative approaches and efforts to apply communication to current agricultural and rural development challenges. It builds on initiatives promoted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) that foster collaboration among academic institutions, scholars and communication practitioners to promote evidence generation and policy change in line with the Global Action Plan of the United Nations Decade of Family Farming (UNDFF 2019-2028). In particular, the efforts draw inspiration from a rights-based approach to Communication for development (ComDev) and social change that orients the work of several institutions and organizations with family farmers, Indigenous Peoples and rural communities.

The book is the result of a collaboration between FAO and the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) initiated in 2014 on the occasion of the IAMCR preconference, Communication for Sustainable Rural Development and Social Change, held in Hyderabad, India (Lie and Acunzo, 2014). The collaboration continued as part of the Forum on Communication for Development and Community Media for Family Farming, held the same year, which brought together communication practitioners, farmer organizations, academics and development institutions within the context of the International Year of Family Farming.

These events and initiatives underlined the importance of active partnerships between academia and development institutions to promote evidence generation and policy advice in the field of rural communication services (RCS), and inspired the creation of the Global Research Initiative for Rural Communication that involves: The Centre for Communication and Social Change at The University of Queensland, Wageningen University & Research, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, the University of Guelph, the University of Reading, the University of the Philippines Los Baños and FAO.

In 2018, these same entities established the IAMCR Rural Communication Working Group, which focuses on applied research and studies on communication dynamics in rural areas and the intersection between communication and rurality, exploring the breadth of formal and informal communication processes. Ever since, the Rural Communication Working Group has provided a platform for scholars and professionals working in the field of rural communication, paying special attention to development policies and innovation systems and promoting rural communication services suitable to the current needs of rural populations.

In recent years, a series of successful activities have been organized jointly by FAO and the Rural Communication Working Group. These activities were promoted with the support of Collaborative Change Communication, a global hub for knowledge sharing regarding RCS.

Since the beginning, the approach adopted for these activities has been to start with rural people’s needs and facilitate a dialogue with institutions on the type of communication services to be implemented in rural settings. Furthermore, enhancing local capacities to generate evidence as a prerequisite for policy change in this field is key to the collaboration between FAO and IAMCR. This shared vision led to the establishment of research awards in 2023 and 2024 for authors of IAMCR papers that advanced the understanding of RCS applications in agriculture, family farming, natural resource management, climate change adaptation, and disaster risk reduction. The awards have proven to be instrumental in promoting quality research studies, some of which are included in this book.

2. Advancing rural communication services

The UNDFF advocates for recognizing the role of family farmers and smallholders as key agents in fighting hunger, maintaining and restoring ecosystems, and building resilience against climate change. Its Global Action Plan recognizes the need to give voice to family farmers, enhance their communication capacities, and institutionalize rural communication services (FAO and IFAD, 2019). Family farmers require access to information and opportunities to enhance their communication capacities to face compelling challenges, take advantage of development opportunities, and overcome inequalities, including the digital divide that limits their use and appropriation of digital technologies.

Today, more than ever, there is a need to ensure dedicated communication services for rural people as part of national agricultural policies and programmes. This requires new policy frameworks, financial commitments from development institutions and governments, and policy dialogue with producer and Indigenous People’s organizations, representatives of women and youth, and the private sector. However, mainstreaming inclusive communication services implies working at different levels: using Communication for development (ComDev) approaches to involve family farmer organizations and rural institutions, generating solid evidence to orient technical and policy decisions, and taking advantage of favourable national policies and priorities promoted by international initiatives such as the UNDFF and the SDGs (Balit and Acunzo, 2020).

The concept of rural communication services (RCS) was first adopted in 2011 by the FAO Expert Consultation on Communication for Development (FAO, 2012). It was initially generated through the FAOsupported Communication for Sustainable Development Initiative programme within the context of field projects, in countries such as Bangladesh, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Jamaica. These actions aimed to promote institutional arrangements to allow demand-driven communication services for rural communities. This involved mainstreaming ComDev strategies into national and local agricultural planning, strengthening the communication capacity of several actors (such as advisory services, farmer organizations and the private sector), and ensuring improved institutional coordination (FAO, 2012).

Another significant milestone in this process was the Forum on Communication and Community Media for Family Farming (FCCM). The FCCM was held in Rome from 23 to 24 October 2014 at FAO premises with over 100 participants. It facilitated, for the first time, a dialogue among farmers and civil society organizations, community media, communication networks, academia and specialized ComDev entities regarding the need to promote and institutionalize inclusive RCS – defined as “sustained, inclusive and demand-led communication processes involving family farmers and the rural population” (FAO, 2016, p. 43).

The need to institutionalize RCS was recognized as a key element for upscaling local communication experiences and project results into more permanent services. Still, it was considered a dimension to be adapted with flexibility according to the existing organizational structures and policy frameworks. This adaptability of the approach to RCS still needs to be fully explored, considering that it also improves the capacity of the agriculture sector to influence telecommunication or media policies with well-grounded proposals. Therefore, a clearer understanding of the RCS framework and its applications is also needed to better orient research and advocacy initiatives in this field.

Defining rural communication services

In recent years, FAO, in collaboration with IAMCR and different academic institutions, has published various documents addressing RCS (FAO, 2016, 2017, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c) and several definitions have been crafted to describe RCS. The FCCM report states, “Rural Communication Services is a working concept that seeks to frame a wide range of processes, activities, media applications and institutional arrangements that respond in a sustained and inclusive manner to the communication needs of rural populations” (cited in FAO, 2016, p. 43).

Rural communication services are sustained, two-way communication processes delivered regularly for the rural population. They are intended to enhance rural livelihoods by facilitating equitable access to knowledge and information, social inclusion in decision-making and stronger links between rural institutions and local communities. Rural communication services include elements of policy, service provision and institutional arrangements (FAO, 2014b).

In general terms, RCS – understood as a public good – provide a framework to promote policy dialogue, social inclusion, participatory decision-making, appropriation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) by rural people, and stronger linkages between rural institutions, farmer organizations and communities. They are instrumental in overcoming inequalities that may affect family farmers and in promoting adequate communication initiatives for collaborative change.

A rural communication services framework

Rural communication services provide a flexible framework to advance new services in rural areas by supporting and scaling up participatory communication processes and appropriate media and digital solutions and institutionalizing them, while strengthening linkages between institutions, farmer organizations and rural communities. A visual representation of the different dimensions that are brought together under the RCS framework is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The RCS framework

Source: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2024a. Transforming rural Africa: Trends and experiences in rural communication services. Rome.

Key rural communication services functions

The core function of RCS is to facilitate sustainable and equitable development through:

- > demand-led communication processes, media applications and institutional arrangements;

- > fostering of social inclusion in decision-making;

- > appropriation of ICTs by rural people;

- > stronger linkages between rural institutions, farmer organizations and communities, and

- > promotion of policy dialogue for sustainable development.

To operationalize RCS, the combination of concepts, approaches and methods that work in a given context must be determined. Rural communication services must be informed by practice, founded upon research which provides evidence, supported by policy, embedded in the context of family farming, and grounded in service systems. This relation among different factors is presented below in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Rural communication services in family farming

Source: FAO. (forthcoming). Technical seminar rural communication services and inclusive innovation approaches – Report. Rome.

3. Addressing key rural communication services challenges

As indicated earlier, providing data and evidence, while developing technical capacity, are essential factors for designing usercentred communication services dedicated to rural areas and promoting policy dialogue for their institutionalization. The challenges involved in designing such services have motivated collaboration between FAO and academic and research institutions, as well as community media, farmers and civil society organizations, especially in the Global South. Rural communication services have been on the agenda since the start of the collaboration between FAO and IAMCR, bringing together issues related to many different fields, from extension and advisory services to rural development and other disciplines related to communication and the agriculture sector. This is because the concept of RCS includes more than just agricultural extension and advisory services. It addresses the requirements of the rural sector in negotiating and operationalizing an integrated bundle of services to be delivered in a coordinated and inclusive manner.

Building on the centrality of RCS and the work carried out by FAO, the 12 contributions included in this book showcase at least three prominent dimensions of RCS: (1) the need for theoretical grounding and action research; (2) the need to promote inclusivity and equality, balancing digital and non-digital communication; and (3) the need to address capacity, infrastructure, institutionalization and policy. These themes are addressed throughout the book’s three sections and are expanded upon below.

Need for theoretical grounding and action research

The concept that theory and practice are in opposition to each other is a thing of the past. In 1952, Lewin stated, “There is nothing more practical than a good theory” (Lewin, 1952, p. 169). This points to the importance of theory and demonstrates the intrinsic relationship between theory and practice. The idea that every intervention requires a “theory of change” clarifies that one cannot act without a plan. In 2014, FAO launched the sourcebook Communication for Rural Development (FAO, 2014a). This book is only one of the many available documents addressing strategies and methodologies in Communication for development.[1] These strategies, methodologies, methods, techniques and tools are based on ideas about how to achieve change, which are, in fact, theories. As stated by Judee Burgoon, theories consist of “a set of systematic, informed hunches about how things work” (as cited in Griffin, Ledbetter and Sparks, 2019, p.3). The concrete ways of doing things – organizing workshops, facilitating storytelling sessions, using video in a participatory manner, or engaging in serious games – are based on ideas about how things operate.

Another binary opposition from the past is between academics and professionals. Academics are supposed to deal with theories, while professionals are supposed to deal with practice. The opposition between academics and professionals may hold when referring to people who are employed by academic institutions on the one hand and people who are employed by other institutions or organizations on the other hand. Still, the difference becomes redundant when applied to people working in development and social change. Academics working in the field of communication for rural development take a normative stand and intend to have their work contribute to change. So do professionals. Thinking in binary oppositions such as theory vs practice and academics vs professionals does not help to further improve the livelihoods of family farmers. Theory and practice are intrinsically linked, and working for change has a normative character grounded in inclusion, equality, accountability and democratization.

Beyond digitalizing communication: promoting inclusivity and equality

The past two or three decades have been dominated by digitalization. Much effort has gone into building evidence about the positive impact ICTs have in enhancing rural development. Nevertheless, many ICT-related projects fail due to non-inclusive design and inappropriate implementation (see, for instance, Smith and Lie, 2022). Working in an inclusive way is crucial for successfully implementing both digital and non-digital RCS. Co-creating in an equal, horizontal and democratic setting with stakeholders, including farmers and their families, from an early phase in the design of communication interventions or innovation processes is crucial, not only for success but also from a rights-based perspective. The rights-based perspective that is at the heart of the RCS approach means that the end users (the farming families) have the right to be involved in designing and implementing the communication interventions and innovations in which they are the end users.

Living labs and other inclusive innovation ecosystems (such as farmer field schools) that involve building conducive environments for the participation of farming families have become popular. Several contributions in this book adhere to the underlying principles (elucidated by Lie, Van Paassen and Witteveen, 2023) that are brought together under the umbrella of living labs. Key principles that are addressed in this book and underly the work of the authors are: think systemic, generate appropriate space, work in a context-sensitive way, facilitate stakeholder participation, configure the participation of users, build rapport and govern responsibly, co-create, reflect and engage with scale and impact. The application of these principles is broader than solely underlying living labs. They form the foundation of work in RCS, focusing on inclusivity and equality.

Not everything is digital. Analogue radio remains one of the most important communication channels for RCS. In rural China, loudspeakers still operate to inform people, and in many places worldwide, face-to-face communication between farmers, between farmers and extension officers, and between farmers and commercial vendors of agricultural products remains the preferred form of communication. Mobile phones are common now in many parts of the world, and farmers call extension officers on their phones asking for advice. However, not all farmers have smartphones, and not all have continuous phone access. A farmer may have a phone, which he or she shares with family members and other community members. The phone may or may not have credit; it might be charged; there may be coverage, and he or she may have to walk up the mountain to get a connection. The mobile phone has found its way into RCS, and this book shows some other interesting examples of digitalization in communication channels. However, it also presents work that does not rely on digital technologies or that seeks a balance between using (basic) digital technology and simply speaking face-to-face.

Enabling factors: capacity, infrastructure, institutionalization and policies

Communication infrastructure and access to such infrastructure are essential for rural communication. Infrastructure and local communication capacity are part of the enabling environment. In this context, the third and final part of the book zooms in on small-scale, locally managed community-based network services in Argentina, Kenya and Mexico. Community networks bring Wi-Fi (through hotspots), mobile telephone services, and “traditional” media such as radio and television to rural areas and can connect the last mile. Such infrastructures do not appear on their own. They must be initiated, facilitated and regulated. Institutionalization is essential in this regard as it supports long-term sustainability. Furthermore, collaboration between stakeholders at different societal levels also seems crucial to achieve such long-term sustainability. Policies can enable such collaboration and provide mechanisms for dialogue. Dialogue and stakeholder collaboration are essential to formulating appropriate (telecommunications) policy – policy focused on establishing infrastructure, but also policy through which access to digital and non-digital communication services is prioritized and access to relevant information is ensured. Such dialogue must include farmer organizations and rural women and youth.

To make a meaningful difference in the future, it is necessary to know the specific historical developments of infrastructure, institutionalization and policy and regulatory frameworks and to enhance local capacity to manage communication processes and services. Each nation, region and community has its own history and specific context. Advocacy efforts from civil society and grassroots communities are another aspect that is addressed in the cases presented in the third part of the book. “Advocacy often addresses systems rather than individual policies and actors” (Barrett, Van Wessel & Hilhorst, 2016, p. 9). Enabling environments and infrastructure are about systems, and how these systems operate can be influenced by advocacy, which might be more effective than individual projects and interventions. Advocating for institutionalizing RCS is not only central to the third part of the book but also underlies the entire book as it builds on the fundamental right to access information and communication. System changes are needed to pave the way towards the institutionalization of RCS. This is part of a long-term effort that enhances local capacities to promote collaborative and inclusive change through communication.

4. Communication and collaborative change

RCS offers a framework to overcome inequalities in the field of information and communication and helps bridge the communication/digital divide. It is essential to mainstream the RCS into development policies and initiatives that often focus only on digitalization. In fact, the institutionalization of RCS should be considered part of family farming policies and programmes. This implies the recognition of:

- > the importance of generating evidence of RCS approaches in family farming policies and programmes;

- > the need for a regulatory framework, policies and services that consider the needs of the agriculture sector and the rural population;

- > the need to enhance the communication capacities of farmer organizations and rural institutions; and

- > the importance of community media and other local service providers.

Mainstreaming RCS

The RCS framework can be instrumental in blending communication, innovation approaches and digital solutions; institutionalizing new types of communication services based on farmers’ needs; and giving voice to people. Opportunities and criteria for mainstreaming RCS were documented by a series of regional studies and a global forum promoted by FAO (FAO, 2024a, b, and c). They were further discussed and deepened in a recent Technical Seminar on Rural Communication Services and Inclusive Innovation Approaches held in Rome. The following key takeaways from these studies and events are formulated to institutionalize RCS:

- > The UNDFF offers the opportunity to mainstream RCS as part of national family farming action plans and in connection with the SDGs.

- > Mobilizing technical support and capacity development at national and regional levels is important to advance RCS. To this end, it is fundamental to facilitate and upgrade existing ComDev platforms and networks to share evidence and experiences on RCS. Ongoing regional initiatives that support RCS are: ComDev Asia (comdevasia.org), YenKasa Africa (yenkasa.org) and Onda Rural (ondarural.org).

- > Living Labs and farmer field schools facilitate a multistakeholder and institutional environment conducive to advancing inclusive RCS for innovation in family farming.

- > Ad hoc technical assistance and evidence generation are needed to enhance and scale up existing RCS projects and initiatives.

- > Transformative partnerships between academia, farmer organizations, institutions and development agencies are fundamental to advancing RCS as part of the policy agenda at both national and international levels.

- > The midterm in the implementation of the UNDFF provides an opportunity to showcase the work done so far and the research generated in the field of RCS. It also offers an opportunity to advocate for supporting the processes and experiences described in this document and many others emerging in this field.

- > The Collaborative Change Communication initiative can act as a global hub for knowledge sharing and promote collaboration among researchers, practitioners and organizations interested in advancing inclusive RCS.

Contributing to RCS theory and practice

In addition to the work promoted by FAO on RCS, further evidence-based work is continuously needed. This book addresses the demand for evidence-based work by combining case studies of FAO’s RCS framework and other theoretical bases and studies on communication infrastructures as enabling environments. The book speaks to an audience of academics and rural communication professionals. It showcases how theoretical contributions inform rural practices and demonstrates how rural communication services are grounded in and informed by theory. In addition, it aims to highlight the main areas for research and the missing dimensions related to developing capacities and promoting policies to operationalize RCS. In a nutshell, it contributes to our understanding towards more inclusive communication services for collaborative change.

References

Balit, S. & Acunzo, M. 2020. A Changing World: FAO Efforts in Communication for Rural Development. In: Servaes, J., eds. Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change. Singapore, Springer.

Barrett, J., Van Wessel, M. & Hilhorst, T. 2016. Advocacy for Development. Effectiveness, Monitoring and Evaluation. Wageningen, Wageningen University.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. FAO Expert Consultation Communication for Development: Meeting Today’s Agriculture and Rural Development Challenges. Final Report. Rome.

FAO. 2014a. Communication for Rural Development Sourcebook. Rome.

FAO. 2014b. Farming for the future. Communication efforts to advance family farming. Rome.

FAO. 2016. Rural communication services for family farming. Contributions, Evidence and Perspectives. Results of the Forum on Communication for Development and Community Media for Family Farming (FCCM). Rome.

FAO. 2017. Inclusive Rural Communication Services: Building Evidence, Informing Policy. Rome.

FAO. 2024a. Transforming rural Africa: Trends and experiences in rural communication services. Rome.

FAO. 2024b. Rural communication services for family farming: Results of a global forum. Rome.

FAO. 2024c. Rural communication services: Trends and experiences in Asia and the Pacific. Rome.

FAO. (forthcoming). Technical Seminar Rural Communication Services and Inclusive Innovation Approaches – Report. Rome.

FAO & IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2019. UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028. Global Action Plan. Rome.

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A. & Sparks, G. 2019. A First Look at Communication Theory (Tenth Edition), Boston, McGraw-Hill Education.

Lewin, K. 1952. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. London, Tavistock.

Lie, R. (forthcoming). Communication for Development. Oxford, UK, Oxford Bibliographies.

Lie, R. & Acunzo, M. 2014. Report IAMCR Pre-conference. Communication for Sustainable Rural Development and Social Change. Hyderabad, India, IAMCR.

Lie, R., Van Paassen, A. & Witteveen, L. 2023. Living labs and innovation platforms: A literature review. Program Report. Penang, Malaysia, WorldFish.

Smith, S. & Lie, R. 2022. Designing ICTs for development. A Delphi study on problem framing, approach, and team composition. Inf. Technol. Dev., 29(4): 525–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.21282861–33

[1] For an annotated bibliography on Communication for development, see Lie (forthcoming).

PART I.

Communication and collective action

Overview

Part I of this book presents several case studies from different parts of the world reporting on rural communication services (RCS). All the cases emphasize the critical role of the collective in planning and implementing change interventions and address collaborative change. The thinking behind collaborative change is that inclusive and sustainable change can only be achieved through collaboration; that is, by working together and making the collective vital to the process. The central role of collaboration as an intervention process and technique is reflected in all five chapters, although it is addressed in three different ways. The first is by facilitating group learning in collaborative change. The case presented in Chapter 1 applies a core principle of farmer field schools: group learning. The group is also central in Chapter 5, in which group model building (GMB) is adopted as an RCS and applied as a diagnostic intervention technique that builds on collective knowledge and emphasizes the importance of group learning.

The second way collaboration is addressed and the collective is seen as central in these case studies is through the application of a set of core concepts consisting of participation, engagement, involvement, co-creation, inclusion, equality and co-innovation. These concepts also address the collective and stress the importance of collaboration to reach sustainable change. Not all people are equal, and diversity and inclusivity are essential in all change processes that seek sustainable change.

The third way in which collaborative change is addressed in the case studies presented here is by embracing diverse ways of seeing and doing things. Inter, multi and trans seem to be the prefixes used in determining how to approach things. These prefixes also emphasize the core activity of collaboration and of “Weaving People Together”, the theme of the 2024 annual conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), and the title of Chapter 4. Different authors address the need for collectivity and collaboration by using terms such as interinstitutional, intersectoral, interconnectivity, interethnicity, interlinkages, multistakeholder, multidimensional, multilevel, multidirectional, multisectoral, multilayered, multidisciplinary, multiplicity, transboundary and transdisciplinarity.

It might not need to be argued that collaboration requires communication, and all five studies presented in Part I have been awarded the FAO/IAMCR Rural Communication Services Research Award for their work concerning communication for collaborative change. Some chapters have been revised for this book publication, and co-authors have been added after the original papers received the award.

In Chapter 1, Nurdahalia Lairing, Yunus Busa, Ikbar Ashadi and Loes Witteveen report on the prototype testing of the Digital Farmer Field School (DFFS) Enrekang in Sulawesi, Indonesia. A DFFS is an Android-based learning platform installed on a tablet and used by farmer groups and extension officers for knowledge sharing and co-creation as a complementary strategy to other RCS. The chapter discusses designing, developing and testing the DFFS Enrekang in a living lab setting, as an innovative way to address the challenges of sustainable food production and environmental protection. The authors conclude that the prototype testing provides convincing evidence that extension officers and farmer groups can operate and navigate the DFFS functions. Farmers – male and female, young and old – expressed a keen interest in the DFFS as well as a high level of motivation and the ability to use it.

Chapter 2, written by Ma. Theresa M. Rivera explores digital technology’s role in facilitating participation through DXUP-FM, a community radio station in the Municipality of Upi, Maguindanao Province, in the Philippines. The radio station’s programmes facilitate interaction among the tri-people communities of Tedurays, Bangsamoros and Christian settlers by celebrating Indigenous culture and addressing local issues. In particular, Facebook livestreaming has enabled DXUP-FM to expand its reach and engage with a broader audience beyond traditional radio frequencies. Drawing on qualitative data collected through interviews, observations and document analysis, the study demonstrates how the incorporation of digital technology has augmented radio DXUP-FM’s impact in shaping citizen engagement and participation. However, challenges such as limited technology access for remote villages, intermittent power outages and infrastructure deficiencies must be overcome as they hinder equitable participation.

Nurul Hilmiati and Adelia Caetano Gonzaga Dos Santos report on RCS in Timor-Leste in Chapter 3. Since its independence, the Government of Timor-Leste has invested substantially to enhance its agriculture sector and support family farmers in transitioning from subsistence to commercial farming, particularly in cattle farming – one of the most promising agricultural enterprises for farming families in rural areas. This chapter offers insights into how the RCS model Redi KAMODI (Cattle-for-Good-Lives Network), which is based on co-innovation processes, could guide farmers to become commercial cattle producers and business managers while turning government extension officers into facilitators of change.

In Chapter 4, Tim Fry presents findings from a study investigating the influence of neocolonial and neoliberal path dependencies on the equity of Mpumalanga’s Agricultural Education and Training (AET) system in South Africa. Data was collected using semistructured interviews, focus groups, and a reflexive and visioning workshop. Through data analysis, the study assessed the institutional environment of Mpumalanga’s AET system, thus adding to the evidence base for RCS as a systemic enabler for equitable development. The study found that structures supporting industrial agriculture have been strengthened. At the same time, it is apparent that there is an absence of structures that enable interactions between groups to identify opportunities to increase systemic resilience. Fry argues that to combat novel and ongoing wicked problems equitably, greater focus must be placed on developing multistakeholder and multilevel communication processes that bring together diverse actors around shared priorities and complementary access to resources, skills and knowledge.

In Chapter 5, Ibnu Budiman, Afifah Azzahra and Shakila Sania Parsa discuss the relevance of group model building (GMB) as an RCS. Their study investigates how GMB workshops supported innovation adoption in dairy farming in West Java, Indonesia. GMB workshops engage farmers and other stakeholders in developing causal loop diagrams (CLDs), which map relationships between innovation problems, adoption barriers, interventions for uptake, innovation impacts and specific technologies. The CLDs are developed through a participatory process and can serve as a tool to develop contextualized and effective solutions to existing problems. The authors conclude that GMB is a powerful tool for enhancing RCS related to agricultural innovation by fostering dialogue and facilitating networking and collaboration among stakeholders, by building shared understanding and collaborative identification of barriers and solutions, and by promoting ownership and empowerment.

Chapter 1

Developing rural communication services: prototype testing of a digital farmer field school in Indonesia

Authors:

Nurdahalia Lairing

University of Muhammadiyah Enrekang, Indonesia
University of Hasanuddin Makassar, Indonesia

Yunus Busa

University of Muhammadiyah Enrekang, Indonesia

Ikbar Ashadi

District Agriculture Office of Enrekang, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Loes Witteveen

Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

1. Introduction

A digital farmer field school (DFFS) is an alternative strategy for rural communication services (RCS). It is an Android-based learning platform installed on a tablet and used by farmer groups and extension officers for knowledge sharing and co-creation. This chapter elaborates on the prototype testing of DFFS Enrekang – a DFFS developed in Enrekang District, in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. DFFS Enrekang was designed as an innovative way to address the challenges of sustainable food production and environmental protection.

The next section (Section 2) provides background information on the need for an alternative means of knowledge sharing among farmers in Enrekang District and the benefits of a digital option. Section 3 presents the living lab approach, which puts the DFFS initiative’s interinstitutional, collaborative process in motion. Section 4 describes the design and development of the DFFS. Section 5 describes the prototype-testing methodology, and Section 6 describes the testing itself and the results. Section 7 provides conclusions and recommendations for the way forward.

2. Background

The DFFS Enrekang initiative began with an assessment conducted in 2018, aimed at exploring knowledge needs of farmers in Enrekang District, identifying existing agricultural extension activities and seeking ideas for the design and development of a DFFS in Enrekang. The assessment was an initiative of the head of Enrekang District, in close collaboration with the District Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, in response to concerns over farmer income, rural extension challenges resulting from new farming practices related to climate-change-induced loss in coffee farming, and river pollution resulting from the deforestation of coffee farms. The assessment (Lairing and Witteveen, 2018) demonstrated that complex challenges constrain agricultural development in the Enrekang District. One of the challenges identified was farmers’ excessive application of chemical pesticides in response to their fear of losing production due to plant pests and diseases. Another challenge is farmers’ limited knowledge regarding soil conditions required for horticultural crop production, resulting in ineffective fertilizer application. These challenges underscore the need for innovative solutions like the DFFS Enrekang, which is designed to address these and other local issues and promote sustainable agriculture.

The assessment also revealed that farmers require a means to receive and exchange up-to-date information on techniques and technologies to increase their productivity, diversify into more commercial crops, and manage their soil and water resources to cope with climate variability. Farmers also need real-time weather reports and information on cropping patterns. In addition, they need marketing linkages, additional crop and food storage, and processing technology to maximize their profitability by adding value to their produce. Farmers also indicated that they wanted to apply environmentally sound practices as they were observing landslides and river pollution and were questioning the potential health impacts of the fertilizers and pesticides they were using. An additional finding of the assessment was that all the farmers involved in the assessment possess and use mobile phones.

Government officials from diverse departments discussed the findings of the assessment in focus groups. The findings were in line with what they knew about the situation of the farmers. Furthermore, the focus group discussions made it clear that the different departments and organizations involved were encountering similar concerns and implementing similar activities. All the needs expressed by the farmers in the assessment already featured on the agendas of the different institutions active in rural Enrekang. At the same time, all the institutions were facing problems related to mobility, staff training and resource scarcity that constrained their capacity to provide effective extension, communication and farmer-learning services. The COVID-19 pandemic and the social distancing requirements that were instituted in its wake further hindered their activities, limiting the movement of goods and services and hindering the work of rural extension officers. In response to these difficulties, the local government departments of agriculture, livestock and fisheries, and the environment, together with the local university (Universitas Muhammadiyah Enrekang, or UNIMEN), decided to explore new avenues to overcome these issues, eventually deciding on the design and development of a DFFS using the living lab approach to catalyse their interinstitutional effort.

In 2019, the results of the assessment and first steps of the development of the DFFS Enrekang were presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research in Madrid, Spain. The conference audience showed interest in digital learning solutions and in their potential to revolutionize RCS. This recognition has sparked a wider interest in integrating e-learning methodologies into agricultural training programs.

In February 2022, the Government of Indonesia launched an e-agricultural strategy to leverage digital technologies to improve the productivity, efficiency and sustainability of the agriculture sector. The strategy encompasses several key elements, including the use of e-learning platforms and digital education resources to bridge the knowledge gap and provide farmers with access to up-to-date information, best practices and innovative techniques. The issuance of this policy has made the relevance of the DFFS even more apparent. The Ministry of Agriculture intends to integrate the DFFS into its e-learning strategy to enhance the accessibility and quality of agricultural education nationwide. This will support the government’s broader digital transformation and inclusive education objective and help to ensure that the farmers are equipped with the latest knowledge and skills to improve their productivity and sustainability.

3. Living lab Enrekang

The living lab approach was the ideal strategy for the institutions working in Enrekang to collaboratively build the DFFS in order to address the complex challenges they faced in providing extension, communication and farmer-learning services. Although specific definitions of a living lab vary, all authors and practitioners agree that living labs are open innovation or co-creation processes, in real-life settings, involving government, academia, civil society and industry. The living lab approach facilitates synchronized communication among stakeholders and creates essential collaborative action and learning for the institutional partners involved (Ståhlbröst and Holst, 2012; Westerlund and Leminen, 2011). It focuses on co-creation, prototyping, testing and scaling up solutions, offering value to stakeholders at different levels. Although the approach is considered relatively new in the agriculture and environment sectors, it is showing promising results (Beaudoin et al., 2022).

The Enrekang Living Lab was initiated as an innovative approach to find solutions to the farmers’ needs through the joint efforts of different institutions providing rural services. Soon after the start of the living lab, the partners agreed to begin designing and developing a DFFS as a digital platform for rural communication. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the District Health Office on board the living lab, and more recently, the Disaster Management Office also joined the living lab. The Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences (from the Kingdom of the Netherlands) collaborates with the Enrekang Living Lab in the design and development of the DFFS.

The adoption of the living lab approach in the design and development of the DFFS Enrekang was driven by the need for a collaborative and practical innovation environment in which a solution tailored to the specific agricultural challenges of the farmers in the district could be developed. The living labs approach allows farmer groups, relevant government agencies and research organizations to participate in the entire design and development process. In particular, the Enrekang Living Lab provided a collaborative space that activated intersectoral cooperation and included the farmers as co-creators. As explained by Witteveen, Fliervoet, Roosmini and van Eijk (2023), by involving farmer groups in the design, development and management of a solution, the solution that is developed (in this case, the DFFS Enrekang) reflects the farmers’ priority information needs and addresses real rural issues, transcending bureaucratic boundaries between government institutions. In addition, producing and testing the working DFFS prototype together with the farmers generated shared enthusiasm among the institutional living lab partners. Moreover, the participatory development process contributed to shifting how the local government engages with farmers: they are no longer seen simply as beneficiaries, but as end-users whose input substantively shapes the DFFS. This multistakeholder participation in the design of the DFFS is thus transforming conventional top-down dynamics and enabling a more inclusive, farmer-driven process of agricultural communication and knowledge sharing.

4. Design of the DFFS Enrekang

The DFFS Enrekang is designed to facilitate interaction between farmer groups and staff in the back office of the platform. The back-office staff provide information, training and coaching on good agricultural practices and on economic and environmental aspects of farming, as well as addressing specific challenges farmers encounter on their farms. The DFFS also allows farmers and back-office staff to interact through phone calls, text messages and voice recordings and to exchange photographs and videos. The user interface design is based on a narrative with two farmer characters: Pak Ahmad and Ibu Siti. These characters were developed to guide the users through the use of the DFFS. They were created based on the local context and to ensure equal gender representation of farmers in the agriculture sector.

The DFFS Enrekang opening screen was designed to give a general overview of its major components. The opening screen (see Figure 1) features icons with titles (in the Bahasa Indonesia language) of the categories of information and features available in the platform: agricultural practices, environmental practices, fishery practices, library facilities, health information, a camera and music, all in local colour schemes. Touching the icons takes the user to the second and third levels of information.

Figure 1. Opening screen DFFS Enrekang v 1.0

Source: DFFS design team.

The DFFS back office is designed to be managed by the DFFS team to provide support and advice to the farmers, including answering specific questions from farmers. The back-office team is also responsible for downloading and processing recorded information sent to the DFFS by the farmers and farmer groups in order to monitor the relevance of the content on the platform, support content creation by farmer users, and link DFFS themes with the broader rural knowledge system. The back-office team also plays a crucial role in facilitating periodic updating of the tablet and otherwise supporting farmer groups in their use of the DFFS. The two characters representing extension staff, Pak Amir and Ibu Rida, respond to all queries from the farmers. The DFFS is designed to function on a tablet with a SIM card, allowing for interactive functions such as phone calls and text messaging.

5. Digital farmer field school prototype testing

The testing of the DFFS Enrekang prototype, involving the DFFS design team, farmer groups and extension officers, was conducted in October 2022. Prototype testing was considered an integral part of the design and development process, in accordance with one of the principles adopted by the living lab partners: “We do not want to disappoint the farmers.” The testing with extension officers and other institutional staff members was organized in a workshop setting at the UNIMEN campus in Enrekang. Twenty extension officers from the District Department of Agriculture and eight field staff representing the living lab partners participated. The workshop included serious games and role-playing activities designed to simulate real-world scenarios and interactions within the DFFS framework, allowing participants to engage in exercises that mimicked the platform’s actual use. Through the serious games, the participants explored various aspects of the DFFS, identified potential challenges and proposed enhancements in a controlled, interactive environment. The testing approach also aimed to facilitate a deeper understanding of the platform’s functionalities and potential impact and to encourage collaborative problem-solving and knowledge sharing between the design team and institutional stakeholders.

The prototype testing with staff members of district departments was followed by prototype testing workshops with farmer groups in two locations, involving over 50 farmers representing male and female farmer groups from the Baroko and Anggeraja subdistricts. The same DFFS design and management team members facilitated all testing activities.

The prototype testing with farmers focused on testing the usability of the platform and the ability of the end users to navigate the DFFS functions and features. The workshop began with a short, interactive session to explain to the participants the reason for the workshop and to introduce them to the DFFS. The participants first worked with the DFFS tablet to become familiar with its operation and to learn how to access and navigate the platform. Afterwards, the participants were divided into five small groups facilitated by DFFS team members. The groups were asked to operate the DFFS application and to engage in a serious game to experience interacting with the back office and navigating all the functions available, including making real-time phone calls to Ibu Rida and Pak Amir in the back office. During this testing process, participants were observed regarding their ability to operate the tablet and how they navigated through the DFFS interface by clicking or tapping on the icons and moving to the next level of the information structure. They were also observed in terms of how they interacted with fellow farmers in their group. Following this testing, the farmers were consulted regarding the key information that should be included in the content of the DFFS.

6. Results

Insights from the testing of the digital farmer field school

The prototype testing workshops with extension officers, institutional staff members and farmers highlighted the potential of the platform to significantly enhance knowledge dissemination and collaboration among farmers, extension workers and institutional stakeholders. The findings of the DFFS role play during the testing were highly insightful, revealing both strengths and areas for improvement. Participants appreciated the interactive and user-friendly nature of the DFFS, noting that it reflected real-world agricultural scenarios and facilitated practical learning.

The prototype testing with the DFFS institutional staff members clarified that a DFFS not only enhances relationships with farmers but also plays a critical role in the broader institutional knowledge system. This realization emerged as participants engaged in simulated interactions and scenario-based activities, which demonstrated how the DFFS serves as a conduit for the flow of information and expertise between various stakeholders in the agriculture sector. For example, messages sent by farmers about a certain pest obliged the DFFS back-office team to contact the university to identify the pest and then to contact extension workers in the District Department of Agriculture for a recommendation on dealing with the pest.

It became evident that the DFFS functions as an integral component of the institutional framework, facilitating the dissemination of agricultural best practices, research findings and policy updates to farmers and agricultural extension workers, researchers and policymakers. This underscores the importance of the DFFS in creating a cohesive knowledge ecosystem that supports continuous learning and improvement across all levels of the agricultural community. Through its implementation, the DFFS enhances the overall effectiveness of agricultural education and innovation, ensuring that all stakeholders are well-informed and are equipped to contribute to sustainable agricultural development.

Results of testing with extension staff

In October 2022, testing with the extension officers and staff members of other institutions in Enrekang showed that they were able to operate the tablet smoothly. They were also able to navigate all the functions available in the DFFS. After experiencing first-hand how to use the DFFS, they discussed their roles in DFFS management. The extension officers realized that the digital learning environment offered by the DFFS would fundamentally change the approach to RCS and impact their role as extension officers. With conventional agricultural extension methods, extension officers operate as a driving force in rural communication and training, whereas with the use of the DFFS, their roles would need to be redefined. As expressed by participating extension officers:

DFFS is great innovation as it aligns with the current development of technology. Everybody became familiar with distance learning since the COVID-19 pandemic. For the DFFS to be used continuously and meet the information needs of farmers, we, as extension officers, need to upgrade our skills in managing digital learning platforms and content creation (Sunira, Subdistrict Extension Officer [female], personal communication, 2022).

I see that the DFFS will change our roles in rural communication services. These changes need to be formalized and reflected in our key performance indicators (Sutarjo Barrang, District Extension Officer [male], personal communication, 2022).

During the testing workshop, the participants engaged in a serious game to experience the DFFS in operation. The participants were divided into groups representing different DFFS stakeholders: the farmers, the back office, the DFFS design team, the DFFS management team, and the university team. Each round of the game began with a question card submitted by a farmer group and handed to the back office, which initiated a series of activities using response cards to simulate the communication between the parties involved.

Regarding the role of extension officers in the back office responding to farmers’ questions, the testing demonstrated that the extension staff were quite optimistic that they could answer the majority of the farmers’ questions. As one district officer indicated, “Ninety percent of the questions from farmers can be handled by extension officers. If they can’t, it will be diverted to the subject specialist available in each office” (Amiruddin, District Extension Officer [male], personal communication, 2022).

During the after-action review, participants in the farmer group described the many activities and communications between the different groups involved. They remarked on the importance of communicating with the farmer groups in case an issue raised could not be understood unambiguously or in full detail.

The main reflections of the back-office group were the following:

- > The back-office team (represented by the characters Pak Amir and Ibu Rida), must clearly understand the division of tasks between farmers, the back office and related organizations (such as the District Department of Agriculture, the District Department of Livestock and the District Department of the Environment) with regard to the issues that arise in the platform.

- > The back-office team must fully understand the wishes of the farmer group and their problems. Complaints and problems raised by farmers need to be answered quickly.

The university group assumed the role of researchers and concluded that:

- > The back office must provide clear and firmer information accompanied by photos and videos.

- > The coordination must be clear so that the information provided to farmers is uniform and comes from one source, namely the DFFS.

The design team came to important conclusions regarding the relevance of multimedia material in responding to questions on pests and diseases:

- > Facilities and infrastructure are needed to design and create visual and context-specific materials that farmers need.

- > The design team must be trained in digital literacy, especially in multimedia design.

- > The production of visual material requires IT personnel to make videos and animations.

The management team focused on the synchronization of tasks and activities and made the following recommendations:

- > Provide an overview of the process of finding a response when farmers raise issues with the DFFS.

- > Collaboration between all stakeholders is needed to address the problems farmers face.

- > The management team facilitates the work of the different groups involved when solving budget-related issues.

- > A clear division of tasks should be established between the management team, the design team and UNIMEN.

Results of testing with farmer groups

The enthusiasm and eagerness of the farmers to participate in the prototype testing indicated their readiness to adopt the DFFS (see Figure 2).

In the testing with the farmer groups, all the groups were able to successfully follow the instructions given by Pak Ahmad and Ibu Sita (the characters representing the DFFS back office) on the opening screen guiding them in operating the tablets and navigating the DFFS functions. The groups began by watching the animated video of Pak Ahmad and Ibu Siti providing instructions on how to use the DFFS, and then tried tapping icons on the screen. Farmers encountered no significant issues in navigating the DFFS. In accordance with Van Deursen and Van Dijk’s typology of internet skills (2009), this is a good indication that the DFFS design aligns with its users’ psychological access and skills access.

Figure 2. DFFS prototype testing with the women’s farmer group Tombonan from Baroko village, in Baroko Subdistrict

© Loes Witteveen

Most farmers own and use smartphones, even though the network is not always available or stable in their area. They use the smartphones to play music and take pictures. They go to places where mobile networks or internet service are available to contact relatives or friends. Many of them are active social-media users on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp. During the testing workshop, they were excited to see the camera and music functions on the DFFS, and some of them were busy taking pictures and uploading them to social media. This confirms one of the findings of the initial assessment – that the DFFS has the potential to respond to the knowledge needs and aspirations of farmers in Enrekang District because they already know how to use digital media in their daily lives.

One female participant showed photos on her phone that she had taken of her coffee trees, which were infected with an unknown diseases. She explained that she had shared the photos in her social media group and sought advice from her fellow farmers, but that no one had come up with a solution. This was clearly an issue that could be addressed through the DFFS. Once the query and photos were sent to Pak Amir or Ibu Rida, the back office team would follow up with experts from the relevant office (such as the District Plantation Department within the District Department of Agriculture) who would investigate further and respond to the farmer.

During the DFFS testing with the farmer groups, it was observed that the size of the tablet (8-inch display) was too small to be used by a group of five people. The tablet had been chosen because it is widely available on the market at affordable prices, meaning that farmer groups could afford to purchase it. However, this needs to be reconsidered as it cannot be used effectively for group learning, which is contrary to farmer field school principles.

After the testing with the devices, the farmer groups engaged in a systematic feedback session to identify and prioritize the most valuable content to include in the DFFS. The session revealed that farmers can express their knowledge needs through direct involvement in the design and development process. Both female and male farmers articulated their specific challenges, preferences and requirements, helping to ensure that the DFFS platform would be tailored to their actual knowledge needs. Table 1 provides examples of the knowledge needs expressed by the female and male farmers.

Table 1. Farmer’s information needs to be included in the DFFS Enrekang

Section/feature

Topics suggested by farmers for inclusion in the DFFS

Questions listed by male farmers

Questions listed by female farmers

Health practices

Treatment of pesticide poisoning

How can indigestion such as GERD be prevented and controlled?

How do you protect the body when spraying and fertilizing?

Protecting the body when spraying and fertilizing

How can uric acid be reduced?

How can you clean the body after evening pesticide spraying in a safe and healthy way?

Treatment of food poisoning

How can rheumatic diseases be prevented or the risk reduced?

Preventing and controlling dengue fever

How can stunting be prevented?

How can heart attacks be prevented and treated?

How can food poisoning be treated?

How can pesticide poisoning be treated?

How can dengue fever be controlled and treated?

Environmental practices

Dealing with water scarcity

How do we deal with water scarcity?

How can pests and diseases be controlled in an environmentally friendly way?

Controlling pests and diseases in an environmentally friendly way

What are profitable ways of processing agricultural waste?

Managing agricultural and plastic waste on the farm

What are farming practices that respond to climate change?

How do you utilize agricultural waste?

How do we handle plastic waste on the farm?

How do you manage organic waste?

Agricultural practices

Cost-effective methods of pest and disease control in horticulture

Can we have advice on horticultural commodities?

What are the cost-effective methods of pest and disease control in horticulture?

Can the planting time of each commodity in the district be mapped?

How do we control the disease of fusarium sp and anthracnose?

What are the most effective methods for utilizing the backyard as a family food source?

What are the post-harvest processing methods to increase value when production is abundant and prices drop?

Strategies for marketing agricultural products

What are more economical farming systems?

What strategies can be employed to market agricultural products?

Can we include market information on agricultural commodities (availability of commodities and prices)?

Fisheries and livestock practices

Tutorials on fish farming

Can we have advice on innovative crop/livestock integration?

Is there a guide to fish farming?

Preventing and controlling fish and animal diseases

What type of fish is suitable for the highlands?

What are the methods for fish food processing to increase profitability?

Can we have advice on fish and animal disease prevention and control?

How do we prevent and control ticks in cattle?

Is there a guide for profitable fattening?

What are the methods to stimulate milk production in goats?

What is the best way to manage livestock waste?

Can a guide to fish farming be included?

Additional features proposed

Market prices of agricultural commodities

Can a weather forecast be included?

How do you connect with other farmer groups from different areas?

Note: GERD refers to gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

The table above shows that male and female farmers have both similar and different information needs. The prioritization of farmers’ information needs for inclusion in the DFFS is based on the specificity, actionability and direct relevance of the information to the farmers’ daily activities and environmental conditions. For instance, for health-related queries, the focus is on classifying targeted and practical information that can be immediately useful to farmers, addressing the most urgent and relevant health risks associated with farming activities. Broader health issues, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease and stunting, which require more comprehensive health care solutions beyond the scope of the DFFS are not prioritized. This method ensures that the most critical and actionable information is disseminated to farmers, facilitating immediate and effective application.

The discussion following the prototype testing provided new insights for the DFFS staff regarding the farmers’ information needs. As one DFFS design team member said:

We often assume that the information needs of farmers are the same, and therefore we tend to provide generic information without trying to understand what information is specifically needed by these groups. And from today’s discussion I knew that even though the topic is the same, men and women have different interests to the specific training content (Ilham, DFFS design team member, personal communication, 2022).

The DFFS design process applies user-centred design to address the specific context, culture, behaviours and expectations of the DFFS user groups. This process has promoted the co-creation of solutions and the continuous gathering and incorporation of user feedback. In this respect, the farmers and the DFFS design team agreed to meet again and test the DFFS contents as soon as they are available. This agreement was put into a contract and signed by the farmers and the DFFS team.

7. Conclusion and way forward

In contexts in which there are limited rural communication facilities, such as the Enrekang District, the DFFS Enrekang provides an alternative for interaction between farmer groups and extension officers and creates an opportunity for different RCS stakeholders to reach the farmers through a single, coordinated channel. The prototype testing of DFFS Enrekang v1.0 demonstrated that both extension officers and farmer groups were able to operate and navigate the DFFS. Farmers – male and female, young and old – expressed keen interest, a high level of motivation and the ability to use the DFFS. Furthermore, the DFFS prototype testing enhanced the participation of both female and male farmers in providing input to the design and content of the DFFS, making it possible for the platform to respond to their particular needs.

The extension officers consider that digital innovation has the potential to address current issues related to sustainable food production. Their discussions indicate an increasing interest in the DFFS as a complementary and innovative means of rural extension. This is different from the more reluctant view they expressed in earlier cross-sectoral workshops, in 2019, when the DFFS was first introduced. At that time, the extension officers questioned the DFFS as a threat to conventional rural extension jobs. The current, more positive attitude seems to have arisen from their experience during the testing process, as it became apparent that the DFFS creates new opportunities for knowledge creation and exchange between the users and the design team. However, the extension officers also recognize that the DFFS will change their roles and how they work. These changes must be reflected in the government policy document that is set as a cornerstone for the DFFS to continue.

In discussions with the farmer groups, it became apparent that there are three categories of information that can be included or referred to in the DFFS:

- > information that is relatively stable and can be on the tablet more or less permanently (such as planting calendars and information about fertilizers);

- > information that needs to be updated daily (such as information about weather conditions, market prices and the availability of products on the market);

- > information not available on the platform, which the farmers can request from the back office.

This distinction will support the further elaboration of an information typology and management system once the DFFS is operational. This aligns with the results of the prototype testing with the extension officers, in which it was concluded that the cooperation between the design team and the back office is very important. A clear job description is needed for all the parties involved in the DFFS, including the design team, the management team, UNIMEN and the farmers. All of this will affect the flow of communication in response to queries from farmer groups. As agreed with the farmers, the design team has to feel accountable for developing content for the DFFS based on the priority information needs listed by farmers. It is recommended to design further and develop affordable and intuitive materials, creatively using available resources and iterative testing.

The results of the serious game with the extension officers and institutional staff members demonstrated the importance of paying close attention to the management of the DFFS in full operation. The activity clarified the flow of activities and the diverse requirements and responsibilities of the different groups involved. It is recommended that this serious game or a similar approach be used in future workshops. By playing the game, the participants were able to experience and practice the reality of the DFFS in operation, enabling them to understand the DFFS as a responsible innovation approach with dimensions such as anticipation and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al., 2013). An unexpected result of the serious game exercise was the surprise of both extension officers and farmers in terms of their ability to engage with something as unfamiliar as prototype testing. This is apparent in a statement made by one of the extension officers, “We have become IT experts today” (Ikbar, Extension Officer, personal communication, 2022).[1]

References

Beaudoin, C., Joncoux, S., Jasmin, J. F., Berberi, A., McPhee, C., Schillo, R. S. & Nguyen, V.M. 2022. A research agenda for evaluating living labs as an open innovation model for environmental and agricultural sustainability. Environ. Challenges, 7: 100505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100505

Lairing, N. & Witteveen, L. 2018. Assessment Report. The project of Design and Development of a Digital Farmer Field School for Coffee Value Chain in Enrekang District, South Sulawesi – Indonesia. South Sulawesi, University Muhammadiyah Enrekang.

Lairing, N., Witteveen, L., Busa, Y., Bagenda, A., Bagenda, M. & Addi. 2021. Co-constructing principles for Digital Farmer Field School Enrekang Design in South Sulawesi - Indonesia. E3S Web of Conferences, 306:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202130603013

Lairing, N., Witteveen, L. & van de Fliert, E. 2019. Assessing the Potential for a Digital Farmer Field School supporting local innovation in the Coffee Value Chain in Enrekang District, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Paper presented at the International Association for Media and Communication Research 2019 conference in Madrid, Spain, July 7-11, 2019.

Witteveen, L., Fliervoet, J., Roosmini, D., van Eijk, P. & Lairing, N. 2023. Reflecting on four Living Labs in the Netherlands and Indonesia: a perspective on performance, public engagement and participation. J. Sci. Commun., 22(03). https://jcom.sissa.it/articles/author/1843/

Ståhlbröst, A., & Holst, M. 2012. The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Social Informatics at Luleå University of Technology and CDT – Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology. https://www.nmi.is/static/files/Vefverslun/Stjornun_og_rekstur/livinglabsmethodologybook_web.pdf

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy, 49(2): 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2009. Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services. Gov. Inf. Q., 26(2):333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.11.002

Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. 2011. Managing the Challenges of Becoming an Open Innovation Company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev., 1(1): 19–25. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/489

[1] To see a video of the DFFS prototype testing with a women’s farmer group in Baroko, please visit: https://youtu.be/zQj3L6bBdw0

Chapter 2

Rural Radio and multistakeholder participation: the role of digital technology

Authors:

Ma. Theresa M. Rivera

Far Eastern University, Philippines

1. Introduction

Over the past decades, community radio has provided needed localized programming and served as a vehicle for community empowerment. Community radio was established as an alternative to mainstream radio, the programming, content and production of which are primarily suited for commercial use among mass audiences. By contrast, community radio caters to local, everyday occurrences in community life, with programming focused on educating audiences rather than on commercial interests. Community radio also aims to cultivate participation in discussing community problems rather than focusing on the problems faced by larger national audiences. In many ways, community radio has revitalized rural, often marginalized, populations and served as a voice for communities needing information and educational opportunities.

Community radio aims to reach all members of the community it serves (Fraser and Estrada, 2001). Unlike mainstream radio, communities participate actively in the establishment, management, administration and financing of community radio. They participate in formulating the plans and policies of community radio stations and defining their objectives and management principles. They also have a say in decisions concerning programme content, duration and schedules, which enables them to choose the types of programmes they prefer. Community radio producers and listeners interact continuously, leveraging mechanisms that facilitate easy contact between the community, the producers and radio station management, such as call-in shows, outreach programmes and feedback tools. Furthermore, members of the community, whether individuals or groups, have opportunities to produce programmes themselves, with the assistance of radio station staff and the station’s technical production facilities.

Another global process empowering local communities has been the growth of citizen participation for inclusive governance and decision-making. Citizen participation enables citizens to engage with government institutions, voice their concerns and actively contribute to policy development and implementation. In the Philippines, between the 1950s and the 1970s, various modes of citizen’s participation arose. These gained footing during the 1980s, when citizen’s participation became an important component in development, from planning to managing projects (Briones, 1992). Participatory governance also gained prominence in the country through practices such as participatory budgeting, community-driven development projects, and consultations between the government and marginalized groups, all of which fostered government transparency, accountability and responsiveness. The country’s legal framework came to support citizen’s participation as well. For instance, the Local Government Code of 1991 and the General Appropriations Act confirm the need for citizen’s engagement in local governance.

Community radio has played a crucial role in promoting multistakeholder participation and participatory governance in the Philippines, in particular in the rural Municipality of Upi, in Maguindanao Province. In her investigation into the communication environment of this multiethnic municipality, Rivera (2010) found that the central process shaping its communication environment was the interaction between all the ethnic groups (primarily, the Bangsamoro [Muslims], the Lumad [native inhabitants] and the Christians), using communication technologies (particularly radio and mobile phones) to address the development challenges confronting their community. Much of this community-focused interaction took place as they participated in the programmes of the local community radio station, DXUP-FM, the programming of which focuses on building intercultural understanding, strengthening good leadership and cultivating respect between the different ethnic groups. DXUP-FM encourages the participation of the Upi community in their programming and the community provides their feedback through various means: making phone calls to dedicated mobile phone lines or sending text messages, engaging with the station’s social media pages on platforms like Facebook (the most popular social media used in the locality), and participating in real-time during live shows by calling in or sending messages. These methods are regularly used by DXUP-FM to ensure that listeners can easily share their opinions and contribute to the content and quality of the broadcasts.

This chapter examines how the combined use of community radio and digital media technologies facilitate multistakeholder participation among the tri-people community of Upi and how this combination brought about changes in the communication environment and encouraged stakeholder participation in governance. This chapter builds on the research of Rivera (2010), which focused on the use of community media technologies in Upi, especially community radio, and adds insights regarding the impact of the incorporation of digital media into these technologies. Revisiting Rivera’s 2010 study makes it possible to examine the effectiveness and relevance of digital media in enhancing multistakeholder participation in the efforts of community radio. This is important in the broader context of continuous technological advancements and evolving communication landscapes. Technology is rapidly evolving, and digital media now plays a significant role in shaping communication practices and community engagement. Exploring the integration of digital media in community radio sheds light on the advancements, challenges and potential benefits associated with technological integration and its potential to bridge the digital divide, promote inclusivity and empower diverse stakeholders in rural areas.

2. Cultural governance and the start of community radio in Upi Municipality

The Municipal Government of Upi prides itself on promoting the tri-people thrust and the practice of cultural governance. The term “tri-people” came into use in the 1980s as a unifying term to include the major groupings of the residents of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), where Upi Municipality is located: the Bangsamoro (Muslims), the Lumad Tedurays (native inhabitants), and the Christian settlers and their descendants, especially those who settled in Maguindanao in the 20th century (Rodil, 1998). The tri-people concept emerged to foster peace and unity as a response to the conflicts among the Bangsamoro, the Lumad Tedurays, and Christian settlers. It paved the way for the creation of the “Tri-People Way of Conflict Resolution,” a programme which aimed to respect and integrate the diverse cultural practices of these communities into a cohesive governance model (Galing Pook, 2004). Cultural governance was a term applied by the then mayor of Upi, Ramon Piang, Sr., referring to their form of governance that respects and attempts to unify the diverse cultures in the municipality.

In 2004, the Municipality of Upi established a community radio station called DXUP-FM, a 300-watt station established under a project called the Gender, Peace and Development Project, or GenPeace radio. DXUP-FM was to be the local government’s primary instrument for good governance. Both the radio and the local government’s service programmes adopted the tri-people thrust – addressing each of the three ethnic groups in Upi. Advocating for gender equality and peace was the initial thread that connected almost all the programmes.

In 2004, the Government of Upi received the Galing Pook award for being one of the best local government units in the country. In 2005, when the government began developing its digital infrastructure (ahead of other municipalities in the province), it was chosen to be one of the six awardees of the 2005 Asia Pacific Economic Council’s Digital Opportunity Center award for Best e-Practice. These awards confirm the local government’s commitment to good governance and its effective use of community radio and digital technologies in building cultural governance.

Rivera’s 2010 study in Upi, focusing on the use of community media technologies such as radio, the internet and cell phones (especially, SMS messages) among the Tedurays, the Bangsamoro and the Christian settlers, showed that DXUP-FM’s integration of these technologies engaged listeners, encouraged their feedback, and played a significant role in fostering the participation of the tri-people communities of Upi in DXUP-FM’s programming. This process facilitated cultural understanding, strengthened leadership and cultivated respect between the communities. The study findings emphasized the power of exchange and reflexivity within the tri-people environment. In addition, the study highlighted the significance of good leadership and governance in unifying the communities and creating a participatory communication environment. (The unifying concept of tri-people was supported by the structures within the municipality’s governing bodies, media and educational systems.) The development of respect and the promotion of active sharing were essential in overcoming conflicts in the tri-people community and fostering a communication environment conducive to collaboration and understanding.

3. Data collection

For this chapter, data were collected from January through May 2023, using qualitative purpose sampling, focus group discussions (FGDs), interviews and researcher memoing. Contextual data were gathered from 24 participants, comprising community radio broadcasters, teachers and students, government officials, and community representatives. Focus group discussions were held with two groups: one was held with teachers and heads of schools and the other was held with youth groups and students. The one with teachers and heads of schools was held in person, while the one with the youth groups and students was conducted online. The participants in the youth group/student FGD were recruited from the main public school in the municipality – the Upi Agricultural School. Participants for both FGDs were selected regardless of year levels and subjects taught, but all were from one of the three ethnic groups: the Tedurays, the Christians or the Bangsamoro. Key informant interviews were conducted with ten key informants who were interviewed in depth for 60 to 120 minutes to further study the themes emerging from the data in the FGDs. The interviews and FGDs were semistructured to elicit rich and contextual information regarding their experiences with community radio and its transition to teleradio (broadcasting content through digital platforms that can be accessed through mobile applications).

Informed consent was prioritized to ensure the protection and rights of the participants. Informed consent was sought from all participants involved in the study, including community members, radio station staff and other stakeholders. The purpose of the study, its potential risks and benefits, and the voluntary nature of participation were clearly explained to the participants. They were also informed about the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses and that the data would be used for research purposes only.

4. Incorporation of digital technology by DXUP-FM and its role in citizen participation

On 25 January 2019, the Municipality of Upi became part of the BARMM. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Philippine Government reached a significant phase of peace negotiations after the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL, Republic Act No. 11054) was successfully ratified, which established the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The newly established region expanded its territory after a two-part plebiscite, which was held on 21 January and 6 February 2019. Its new territory included Cotabato City, 63 barangays in North Cotabato and the five provinces of the defunct ARMM– Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi (BARMM, 2019).

Notably, the newly established Ministry of Indigenous Peoples Affairs (MIPA), under the BARMM government, increased DXUP-FM’s coverage of the concerns of the Teduray Indigenous People, featuring Teduray anchors and programmes dedicated to discussing their Indigenous issues. In addition, also under the ministry, the programme entitled Keadat-adatan allowed Teduray anchors to share their customs and traditions and translate materials and information into their dialects, ensuring better understanding and engagement within their ethnic community.

Alongside this shift towards greater inclusivity, DXUP-FM had shifted to digital media to open up new possibilities for engagement and participation among its tri-people audience. The station manager and his staff presented the idea to the Community Media Council, which approved the implementation of this new mode of broadcast delivery and DXUP-FM adopted teleradio broadcasting via the radio’s Facebook social media account. This shift allowed the station to reach a wider audience and provided additional avenues for interaction and participation.

Digital media, particularly Facebook livestreaming, eventually became an important tool for DXUP-FM to engage with its audience in real time. By livestreaming its radio programmes on Facebook, DXUP-FM expanded its reach beyond traditional radio frequencies and was able to connect with listeners who prefer online platforms. This allowed individuals to tune in to the radio station’s programmes regardless of their location. As the insights of DXUP-FM’s Facebook page show, the page’s total reach is 754 858 (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the cities and countries reached, mostly accounting for overseas Filipino workers from Upi who tune into the broadcasts.

Figure 1. Screen capture of the page reach of DXUP-FM

Source: Dxup 105.5 fm UPI for Peace Radio. 2023. Page insights (Facebook page). Facebook. [Accessed 8 May 2023.] https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063793135745

Figure 2. Screen capture of audience reach of DXUP-FM

Source: Dxup 105.5 fm UPI for Peace Radio. 2023. Page insights (Facebook page). Facebook. [Accessed 8 May 2023.] https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063793135745

With the shift to digital media, DXUP-FM has not only expanded its reach in providing access to information, but has also provided a platform for the appreciation of the culture and beliefs of each of the groups that make up the Upi community.

In addition, the digital platform has become a valuable source of news updates, school-related information, answers to agricultural concerns, market prices, medical emergency communications (especially during COVID-19), weather updates and disaster warnings. Participants in the study, particularly the Tedurays and the Bangsamoro, indicated that the community radio station has significantly shared and increased appreciation for their cultural heritage and traditions. They recognize the importance of DXUP-FM in keeping the tri-people communities connected and engaged, especially during the challenging times of the pandemic.

Table 1. DXUP-FM’s daily programming

Time

Programme

Anchor

Day

05.00–06.30

Bantay bayan (Citizen watch, morning edition)

Nancy Lawan and Noralyn Bilual

Monday to Saturday

06.30–07.00

DXUP balita (NEWS)

Noralyn Bilual and Nenita Minted

Monday to Saturday

07.00–08.00

Usaping katutubo sa BARMM (Indigenous issues in BARMM)

Nancy Lawan, Noralyn Bilual and Nenita Minted

Every Friday

08.00–09.00

Buhay-buhay sa DXUP-FM (Life at DXUP-FM)

Nancy Lawan with segment reporter

Monday to Friday

09.00–10.00

Talakayang Pangbarangay (Barangay discussion)

Rex Pablo

Monday to Friday

10.00–11.00

Salo together (Gathering together)

Noralyn Bilual

Monday to Friday

11.00–13.00

Udto na Adih (It’s noon already, Adih)

Andrew Bitoon

Monday to Friday

13.00–15.00

Unforgettable

Nancy Lawan

Monday to Friday

15.00–16.00

Bantay bayan (Citizen watch, afternoon edition)

Nenita Minted

Monday to Friday

16.00–16.30

DXUP balita (News)

Noralyn Bilual and Nenita Minted

Monday to Friday

16.30–18.00

Suara Talainged (Bangsamoro Programme)

Omar Kanakan

Monday to Friday

18.00–19.00

Keadat-adatan (Teduray programme)

Nancy Lawan, Noralyn Bilual and Nenita Minted

Monday to Friday

19.00–21.00

Musikahan (Music)

Jake Darren Marquez

Monday to Friday

Source: DXUP-FM anchor, personal communication, 2023

Table 2. DXUP-FM’s Block time programming

Time

Programme

Anchor

Day

7.00–8.00

Usaping katutubo sa BARMM (Indigenous issues in BARMM, A MIPA programme) – for Tedurays

Nancy Lawan, Noralyn Bilual and Nenita Minted

Every Friday

9.00–10.00

Bangsamoro Segurado (Bangsamoro assured – a PhilHealth Programme)

Nancy Lawan, Noralyn Bilual and Nenita Minted

Every second and last Friday of the month

19.00–20.00

Message of deliverance

Jun Grande

Every Sunday

19.00–21.00

Ang Diyos batas at bayan (God, law and nation)

PMAJ Cesar A. Ibal Jr.

Every Tuesday

Source: DXUP-FM anchor, personal communication, 2023

The DXUP-FM station manager emphasized that the radio station’s programmes are carefully designed to encompass the perspectives and interests of each community within the tri-people framework. Programmes often feature interviews and storytelling that celebrate Indigenous culture, address local issues and foster understanding and collaboration among tribal groups. Table 1 and Table 2 illustrate the diverse range of DXUP-FM’s daily programmes, which cater to the specific needs and interests of the Tedurays, the Bangsamoro and the Christians, varying throughout the day.

The use of Facebook livestreaming on DXUP-FM enabled audience members to engage with the community radio station in various ways. Key informants indicated that it allows listeners to comment on and react to the livestreamed content, providing instant feedback and creating a sense of participation. According to them, listeners can express their opinions, ask questions and share their thoughts in real time, fostering a dialogue between the station and its audience. Additionally, DXUP-FM conducts interactive sessions through Facebook livestreaming. They invite listeners to call in, participate in interviews, or join live discussions on various topics. This interactive format encourages active engagement and involvement from the audience, strengthening the connection between the station and its listeners.

Youth participants in this study noted that Facebook livestreaming allowed DXUP-FM to incorporate visual elements into their broadcasts. They showcase video interviews, present visual aids and share multimedia content during their livestreamed programmes. This has enhanced the overall listening experience and allows for a more dynamic and engaging presentation.

Focus-group discussions and key informant interviews pointed to an important contribution of DXUP-FM: the production of School On The Air, which delivered the learning modules to children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers, parents and students greatly benefited from DXUP-FM radio’s School on The Air initiative. With the closure of schools and the shift to remote learning, the Philippine Department of Education used what they called a Learning Continuity Plan as their primary crisis response, asking teachers to employ multiple learning delivery modalities, prepare instructional materials and plan the organization of classes according to these modalities. In Upi, teachers and officials were able to use DXUP-FM to launch the School on the Air programme, enabling the students in the area to continue learning.

To achieve this, DXUP-FM collaborated with elementary and secondary educational institutions to broadcast lessons, educational content and guidance for both students and parents, connecting its radio signals to the existing cable channels in the area. Thus, the concept of teleradio became the mode of delivery for the teachers to connect with their learners across all the villages in Upi Municipality. These programmes catered to different grade levels and subjects, ensuring that students continued to receive quality education despite the limitations of remote schooling. DXUP-FM provided an accessible platform for remote learning, especially for those with limited Internet or online resources. Teachers noted that the School on the Air enabled continuous education and information dissemination amid the challenges posed by the pandemic, thus serving the needs of teachers, parents and students. They also noted the important role of DXUP-FM during the pandemic of connecting children throughout the crisis while enabling teachers to get information from the local government and the Department of Education. One of the teachers said, “Just like a car, the radio is the engine, and the teacher is only the driver who drives (the information) to make the car work” (Teacher, focus group discussion, 2023).

Validation of DXUP-FM’s contribution to the community came in 2022, when the then mayor of Upi, Ramon Piang Sr., was awarded the Salamat Excellence Award for Leadership (SEAL), the most prestigious award given by the Bangsamoro Government in recognition of leaders with an outstanding delivery of services. DXUP-FM anchors indicated that they believed that DXUP-FM’s role as one of the vehicles for delivering the services of the municipal government to the Upi community was a factor in Upi’s success and selection for the award. The award included a cash prize worth PHP 2.5 million (approximately USD 44 100), which the present station manager said would be invested in DXUP-FM’s programme enhancement, expansion and innovation.

5. Benefits and challenges of DXUP-FM’s adoption of digital media

The use of digital media and Facebook livestreaming also facilitated audience participation beyond the broadcast itself. Station anchors who were interviewed pointed to the creation of online communities that include former Upi residents living abroad, where station listeners interact with each other and with the station. These platforms provide a space for conversation, sharing ideas and networking among Upi residents and their family members abroad.

The addition of digital media has also enriched DXUP-FM’s support to senior citizens. Events organized by the municipal government, such as celebrations and special events, are often inaccessible to senior citizens, many of whom live in remote areas. These events are now covered live on Facebook. Furthermore, updates on government services for the elderly, entertainment segments, health and wellness tips, and mental health support are aired through the teleradio channels and help alleviate feelings of isolation and loneliness. Especially during the pandemic, when people were confined to their homes, the station’s services provided through digital media channels served as a vital source of information and companionship for senior citizens who were more vulnerable to the impacts of the pandemic.

In the case of Filipinos working overseas, the station manager and the anchors all agreed that DXUP-FM addresses their unique challenges by offering programmes focused on their rights, welfare and reintegration services. These programmes are broadcast through Facebook, including livestreams. The programmes provide information and updates on repatriation efforts, job opportunities, legal assistance and financial management. By broadcasting relevant information, DXUP-FM helps to ensure that Filipinos working abroad stay informed and connected to resources that can help them navigate the uncertainties of living and working overseas.

Overall, the shift to digital media, mainly through the use of teleradio and Facebook livestreaming, opened up new opportunities for engagement and participation in the community radio. It enabled a wider reach, real-time interaction and the incorporation of visual elements, enhancing the overall listening and viewing experience for the audience. By embracing digital platforms, DXUP-FM expanded the power of community radio and adapted to the changing media landscape, fostering a stronger connection with its listeners. These findings demonstrate the transformative potential of digital technology in rural radio and citizen participation, namely its ability to enhance rural community radio’s capacity to bridge information gaps, foster inclusive intercultural dialogue and promote social change.

However, there are also challenges in the use of digital technology. Many participants in the FGDs and interviews decried their limited access to technology and devices, even those as simple as analogue phones. They also noted their lack of digital literacy, impeding their use of these technologies. The radio station also suffers from infrastructure gaps and problems in the use of digital tools. These need to be addressed to ensure proper functioning of the radio in all its modalities as well as equitable participation on the part of its listeners. Additionally, the municipality and the province experience frequent power interruptions, which interrupt livestreams and shut down access to telecommunication signals, affecting the station’s operation. This issue was raised in almost all the interviews and FGDs and is the most severe problem preventing DXUP-FM from fully expanding its reach and potential.

6. Conclusion

The results of this study highlight the communication environment of Upi, Maguindanao, focusing on the community radio station DXUP-FM and its utilization of digital media. Upi stands out as a unique, remote, rural community that has successfully integrated new media technologies, such as livestreaming, social media and SMS, into its community-based broadcasting. Despite its geographical isolation, Upi has demonstrated its commitment to local community development through the effective use of communication technologies.

The use of digital media, particularly Facebook livestreaming, enabled DXUP-FM to expand its reach and engage with a broader audience beyond that of traditional radio frequencies. The radio station’s programmes, which celebrate Indigenous culture, address local issues, and promote understanding among the tri-people communities of the Tedurays, the Bangsamoro, and Christian settlers, have facilitated interaction and dialogue within the community. DXUP-FM’s shift to digital media not only enhanced audience participation but served as a platform for a number of community initiatives. For instance, radio stations were crucial in delivering education during the COVID-19 pandemic through the School on the Air programme. Further, the radio’s use of digital media has fostered greater citizen participation, especially through the Facebook chat, where Upi citizens, including those working overseas, discuss issues relevant to their lives in the Philippines and overseas and network.

In addition to the benefits of DXUP-FM’s adoption of digital technology, there are also challenges. Limited technological access, intermittent power outages and infrastructure gaps hinder the regular and full operation of the radio station over digital channels. These same challenges also hinder the ability of some listeners to listen to or view and participate in the station’s programmes. Addressing these challenges will be crucial to improving the operation of the radio and ensuring that all the members of the Upi community can fully benefit from the opportunities presented by digital media.

To further enhance the role of community radio in rural communities, this research suggests the following recommendations:

Strengthening digital infrastructure: To maximize the benefits of digital technology in community radio, it is essential to address infrastructure gaps, particularly in remote rural areas such as Upi. Investments in internet connectivity, bandwidth, a reliable electricity supply and access to affordable digital devices are crucial for ensuring equitable participation and engagement.

Collaboration and partnerships: Upi’s experience demonstrated the importance of collaboration. Community radio stations should collaborate with their local government unit and educational institutions, civil society organizations and other stakeholders to leverage their resources and expertise. Partnerships can support the development and implementation of innovative programmes, facilitate knowledge exchange and expand the reach of community radio initiatives. The case of Upi has shown that the support of BARMM (the Bangsamoro government) helped facilitate multistakeholder engagement, expand the reach of the radio station and enable more localized knowledge-sharing.

Content diversity and representation: Community radio stations should strive to ensure diverse and inclusive content that represents the interests, concerns and voices of all community members. Programming should cater to the needs of different groups, such as tribal communities, young and elderly populations and people of different religious denominations. This can be achieved through audience feedback, community engagement initiatives and partnerships with local organizations.

Monitoring and evaluation: Regular monitoring and evaluation of community radio initiatives are essential to assess their impact, identify areas for improvement, and make informed decisions for future programming. Collecting feedback from the audience, conducting surveys and analyzing listenership data can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of digital media strategies and community engagement efforts.

Policy support: Governments and regulatory bodies should recognize the importance of community radio in promoting citizen participation, local development and social cohesion. Policies should be developed to support the integration of digital technology in community radio initiatives, ensure equitable access to resources, and protect freedom of expression and media plurality.

Research and knowledge sharing: Continued research and knowledge sharing in the field of rural communication and the use of digital technologies is crucial to inform best practices and innovations. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers should collaborate to generate evidence-based insights, share case studies and disseminate knowledge to promote sustainable and inclusive community radio practices.

By implementing these recommendations, community radio stations can further enhance their role in serving rural communities, facilitating citizen participation and fostering inclusive communication environments. The transformative power of digital technology, coupled with the reach and accessibility of community radio, can contribute to social, cultural and economic development in rural areas, empowering individuals and strengthening community bonds.

References

Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. 2019. Bangsamoro Government made significant strides in governance. In: Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Bangsamoro, The Philippines. [Cited 26 December 2019]. https://bangsamoro.gov.ph/news/latest-news/2019-bangsamoro-government-made-significant-strides-in-governance/#:~:text=The%20new%20political%20entity%20 is,as%20BARMM%27s%20Interim%20Chief%20Minister

Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. 2022. SEAL awardees each get P2.5-M incentive, 18k gold medallion from MILG. In: Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Bangsamoro, The Philippines. [Cited 26 December 2019]. https://bangsamoro.gov.ph/news/latest-news/seal-awardees-each-get-p2-5-m-incentive-18k-gold-medallion-from-milg/

Briones, L.M. 1992. Decentralization, Participatory Development, and the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations. In: Lim, J.Y. & Nozaria, K., eds. Decentralization and Economic Development in the Philippines. Chiba, Japan, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.

Dxup 105.5 fm UPI for Peace Radio. 2023. Page insights (Facebook page). Facebook. [Accessed 8 May 2023.] https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063793135745

Fraser, C. & Estrada, S.R. 2001. Community Radio Handbook. Paris, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

Galing Pook. 2004. Tri-People Way of Conflict Resolution. In: Galing Pook. Quezon City, Philippines [Cited 26 December 2019.] https://galingpook.org/what-we-do/awards/awardees/tri-people-way-of-conflict-resolution/

Rivera, M.T. 2010. Radio, mobile phones and the Internet: Shaping the communication environment of the tri-people community of Upi, Maguindanao. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Quezon City, the Philippines, University of the Philippines Diliman.

Rodil, B. R. 1998. The Tri-People Approach in the Peace and Development Thrust of Mindanao. Paper delivered at the National Youth Commission-National Youth Parliament Trainers’ Training Workshop, 11-14 December 1998. Marawi City, the Philippines.

Tapales, P.D. n.d. Participatory Governance: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City, the Philippines, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Chapter 3

Co-innovation towards commercial family farming in Timor-Leste: insights from the Redi KAMODI model

Authors:

Nurul Hilmiati

National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia

Adélia Caetano Gonzaga Dos Santos

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Forestry (MAPPF), Timor-Leste

1. Introduction

Since the independence of Timor-Leste in 2002, the national government has put substantial effort into creating economic stability in the country. As a young and small nation with a population of around 1.36 million people, 68 percent of whom reside in rural areas (World Bank Group, 2024), the challenges to achieving economic stability and lifting people out of poverty are abundant. Agriculture is the primary source of income for most rural families, but productivity and profitability are generally low due to a small population, small farm size (less than 2 ha of land per farming family (Islam et al., 2016; Langen, 2016), adverse environmental conditions, and undeveloped marketing infrastructure (da Cruz, 2016). Consequently, farming in Timor-Leste is predominantly subsistence-oriented and there are high levels of poverty among farming families (Langen, 2016). Effective support towards a more business-oriented approach for specific agricultural commodities, which is considered one of the most effective pathways to alleviate persistent poverty (Islam et al., 2016), has the potential to improve the livelihoods of many Timorese farming families.

The Government of Timor-Leste has invested substantially to enhance the agricultural sector and support family farmers to transition from subsistence to commercial farming. Cattle farming is one of the subsectors with the greatest potential to boost this transition, particularly in the mountainous areas of the country. Most farming families have some livestock – on average 3.8 head per household, recorded in 2010 (Bettencourt et al., 2015). Cattle production is predominantly traditional, characterized by free grazing, low-input, slow return on investment and low productivity. The latter is caused by feed insufficiency, slow growth and high calf mortality (Bettencourt et al., 2015). Moreover, cattle ownership also serves ceremonial uses, in particular for dowries, weddings and funerals.

The two available options for improving cattle farming productivity and, hence, livelihoods in Timor-Leste, which must go hand-in-hand, involve (1) introducing production innovations suitable for the socioeconomic and biophysical conditions of smallholder farming families, and (2) enabling farmers to transition from subsistence farming to a more commercial farm management system. Technical innovations to improve cattle productivity that are suitable for Timorese smallholder conditions have been widely tested and documented (see Lisson et al., 2010; Poppi et al., 2011). However, the national agricultural extension system, which is one of the few channels through which farmers can access innovations, has given livestock production limited attention. Since independence, development programmes have focused on food crops, forestry and horticulture (da Cruz, 2016; Langen, 2016). Moreover, the limited number of initiatives that deal with cattle management focus on the introduction of one particular innovation or practice, rather than a transition of the cattle management system.

The national agricultural extension system is characterized by a top-down approach inherited from the transfer-of-technology era (Anderson, et al., 2006). The extension service has mainly implemented programmes that introduce one-size-fits-all innovation packages, which demonstrably failed to provide pathways for sustainable change and, instead, cultivated an attitude of dependency among farmers. At the same time, subsistence farmers are generally trapped, financially and attitudinally, in a low-risk, low-return agricultural system to avoid larger losses in case of farming failure (D’Exelle & Verschoor, 2023). In addition to the necessary infrastructure, being able to step out of this vicious circle requires comprehensive training and critical skills development among farmers, which the mainstream agricultural extension system does not have the capacity for.

Throughout 2015 to 2022, and following a range of scoping studies conducted in 2012 to 2015, a consortium of Timorese, Indonesian and Australian institutions collaborated to develop and pilot a model for a community-led innovation platform that aimed to provide a pathway for smallholders to establish commercial cattle enterprises in Timor-Leste.[1] The model was based on participatory co-innovation processes that brought together farmers, traders, extension officers and researchers. The project emphasized capacity building of stakeholders at all levels to ensure sustained action at the farm level and institutionalization of processes towards a rural communication services (RCSs) system. This chapter offers insights on how the initiative was designed and how it was able to guide farmers to become independent cattle producers and business managers, while simultaneously turning government extension officers into facilitators of change. The next section discusses the theoretical underpinnings of the approach applied in the project and the principles and structures of the co-innovation model that was piloted, called Redi KAMODI. This is followed in the subsequent sections by an overview of the methodology of the evaluation study implemented in the project areas, the major findings of the study, and a discussion and conclusion regarding the effectiveness and limitations of the implementation and institutionalization of such a model in the Timorese context.

2. Theoretical underpinnings

Participatory approaches in agricultural research for development

Farmers’ active participation in agricultural research for development processes has become mainstream over the past three decades (Bentley, 1994; Petheram, 2000). Greater farmer involvement in research for development processes emerged from concerns of continuing low agricultural productivity, particularly in unfavourable rainfed areas, and low uptake of innovations resulting from research (Farrington, 1989). Other critiques involve the top-down nature of research and development initiatives applied by high-level government officials who tend to work with progressive farmers for quick results, which, however, has shown to often lead to limited outreach to the majority of farmers who don’t enjoy the same favourable conditions. It has been widely documented that the socioeconomic conditions of farming families strongly determine innovation uptake and agricultural productivity (Murray-Prior, Jennings and King, 2006), implying that innovations need to be adaptable to varying conditions. In addition, farmers need to have the skills to assess and adapt the utility of an innovation before they can decide whether to invest time and resources into testing it (van de Fliert, 2014).

Evidence of better uptake of innovations from research that applied a participatory approach has been attributed to the greater involvement of farmers and extension officers in research design, implementation and evaluation processes (Okali, Sumberg and Farrington, 1994; van de Fliert et al., 2010). The more intensive farmer participation is in all stages of the research, the more suitable the research outcome is to farmers’ needs (Petheram, 2000).

The involvement of farmers in the identification of problems can motivate them to participate in finding and fine-tuning the right solutions and can reduce resistance to innovation (Chambers, 1994).

The operationalization of a participatory approach to generate impact in agricultural research for development is well depicted in a framework developed by van de Fliert and Braun (2002), in which a community-based participatory situation analysis serves as an entry point for farmers to identify the issues of concern to them and review the opportunities and options to further develop through the research. Involvement in research agenda setting offers the opportunity to feel ownership over the research and, consequently, over processes of adaptation and application of the innovations resulting from the research. Through the process, farmers are given space and time to learn about the innovations and adapt and internalize them into their existing practices after having developed the critical skills to make related informed decisions. Farmers play a crucial role in the analysis of results and in the evaluation of an innovation as a whole, including the socioeconomic implications of internalizing a new practice.

Despite wide support for the efficacy in delivering impact in agricultural research for development initiatives, participatory approaches receive ongoing criticism at the same time; in particular for the amount of time the collaborative process takes. Moreover, when participation is not properly facilitated, the impacts may not occur. Biggs and Smith (1998) argue that simply including people or groups in a process does not necessarily mean their voices are heard and will influence the process. Good facilitators are needed to navigate stakeholders through these processes to avoid falling in the trap of pseudo participation. However, building facilitator capacity prior to engaging stakeholders in a process is often neglected.

Communication for development

The concept of communication for development evolved from two models: first, the diffusion of innovations model, followed by the participatory communication model (Morris, 2003). The diffusion of innovations concept was popularized in the 1960s by Everett M. Rogers and included steps of (1) informing, (2) persuasion, (3) adoption or rejection, and (4) confirmation. This model perceives development as a process to diffuse technology from the more developed world to the less developed world (Servaes and Malikhao, 2008). Therefore, communication is used to change people’s behaviour by providing information and persuading them (Morris, 2003). The change agent is seen as a “messenger” who transfers and disseminates the prescribed knowledge from scientists to farmers (Kamara, Lalani and Dorward, 2023).

The diffusion of innovations model was widely adopted in foreign development-aid programmes from the 1960s until the 1980s but began to receive critiques in the late 1970s (Huesca, 2007). Evidence showed this model had been unable to improve the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers due to its focus on the adoption of high external inputs (Chambers and Jiggins, 1987; Pretty and Chambers, 1993; Röling and van de Fliert, 1998). The model appeared to be unsuitable to solve farmers’ complex problems embedded in multifaceted local agroecosystems and sociocultural conditions (Kamara, Lalani and Dorward, 2023). Rogers, in later editions of his book, Diffusion of innovations, addressed the criticism of pro-innovation bias, individual-blame bias, recall problem, and issues of equality embedded in the early version of the theory (Rogers, 2003). Many other academics and practitioners, however, called for a more farmer-centred and participatory approach that allows greater farmer participation in agricultural research, extension and development processes (Farrington, 1989; Sumberg, Okali and Reece, 2003).

One of the most fully articulated concepts of participatory development communication is the notion of “multiplicity in one world” (Servaes, 1999; 2003). This model promotes an understanding of diversity and plurality, with full respect for people living in different conditions and acting in different ways (Servaes and Malikhao, 2008). Participation is seen as a learning process involving three interrelated elements: collective definition of problems, group analysis of the underlying cause of the problems, and collective action to solve the problems (Servaes, 1999). Therefore, concern focuses on the process of communication, on the context, on the meaning understood, and on how this understanding will be reflected in the practice – rather than focusing on the transmission of information. Information is not created to be disseminated but to be exchanged when needed (Servaes and Malikhao, 2008). Consequently, as of the 1990s, participation became the principal foundation of communication for development.

Agricultural innovation systems and innovation platforms

A growing body of literature emerged in the 2000s on different approaches to generate and communicate agricultural innovations to support farmers’ decision-making and practices. While established agricultural extension service systems across the Global South continued to apply a transfer-of-technology approach, many externally-funded initiatives adopted more interdisciplinary, system-based and participatory approaches to research for development, with strong efforts to institutionalize the innovations and outreach mechanisms within the prevailing service system (van de Fliert and Braun, 2002; van de Fliert et al., 2010; Klerkx, van Mierlo and Leeuwis, 2012). The acknowledgement that family farms face complex and multidimensional problems that require more adaptable and empowering research and extension approaches stimulated the emergence of the concept of agricultural innovation system (AIS) (Hellin, 2012; Kamara et al., 2023). AIS identifies the specific roles various stakeholders hold in agricultural innovation processes, as well as the importance of their abilities and behaviours in promoting agricultural innovations within their communities (Kamara, Lalani and Dorward, 2023).

Through experiences with diverse expressions of the AIS principles, there has been growing recognition of the need to bring different types of actors into the design, implementation and evaluation of agricultural research for development processes in a systemic and effectively facilitative manner, not only to stimulate innovation uptake, but also to foster collective decision-making and action, and to reduce resistance to change (van de Fliert, 2010; Klerkx, van Mierlo and Leeuwis, 2012). These different actors include farmers, researchers, policymakers, traders, service providers and community organizations. The concept of “ innovation platform” began to be increasingly used to illustrate processes allowing various interactions among stakeholders from different disciplines and sectors (Ayele et al., 2012). An innovation platform involves the establishment and facilitation of a supporting network for technical, social, economic and institutional mechanisms that result in innovations (Kilelu, Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2013). The design and establishment of an innovation platform system serving a particular goal generally involves actors who operate as champions in the field or region, who foster collaboration, stimulate learning and mobilize resources (Klerkx, van Mierlo and Leeuwis, 2012).

The innovation platform concept is increasingly used in agricultural research for development initiatives in the Global South to address institutional constraints to innovation processes that target smallholder farming (Lema et al., 2021). Through innovation platforms that continue to exist beyond an initial project, the impacts of innovation processes can be sustained and expanded, as the platform continues to facilitate stakeholder engagement, emphasizing the specific needs and conditions of local farmers (Schut et al., 2016). Innovation platforms have the potential to provide the institutional setting and mechanisms for a new form of RCS. The study presented in this chapter provides evidence of this potential.

3. Developing and piloting the Redi KAMODI model

Rural development context in Timor-Leste

Timor-Leste has a mountainous landscape with a tropical climate. Significant differences exist between the northern and southern coastal areas (da Cruz, 2016). The northern municipalities, such as Bobonaro, are much drier than the southern municipalities, such as Manufahi, which enjoy two rainy seasons – December-January and July-August. Hence, the southern areas have greener coverage, with higher cattle-feed availability, throughout the year as compared to the northern areas.

Farmers in Timor-Leste generally apply a mixed farming system, usually small in scale, without a clear management plan, and predominantly for self-subsistence or semicommercial purposes. Most farm families have some cattle, pigs and chickens, and cultivate rice and maize. Although the average landholding comprises around 2.2 ha per family, usually not all the land is cultivated. Limited labour and lack of equipment for land clearing, fencing and tillage are among reasons for this. Crop farming in these mountainous areas with mixed farming systems is labour intensive because crop land needs to be fenced to prevent free-ranging cattle from destroying the crops. The durability of the local materials used for this purpose is generally not more than two years. Due to these constraints, only 25 percent to 35 percent of the available land is cultivated, as observed by the authors and also reported for other areas by da Cruz (2016).

Another limiting factor to expanding crop farming is the low market demand and unattractive cost-benefit margins. Farmer trade is restricted to small volumes at nearby local markets as most farmers grow similar crops (Islam et al., 2016). Travelling to the larger Dili market is not an option for these small producers because of high transportation costs, bad roads and limited availability of truck rentals. Farmers in Clacuc and Tutubaba expressed disappointment after putting effort, costs and time into maize farming. Marketing opportunities were limited during harvest time as many other farmers produced the same product, while selling to the local kiosks was not an option due to uncompetitive prices compared to similar subsidized imported products.

Consistent with Bettencourt et al. (2015), the authors found that cattle play a critical role in Timorese smallholder farming families covering large expenditures such as cultural ceremonies, house construction and renovation and school fees, as well as in building up savings. Yet, cattle are managed under traditional farming systems that, while they don’t require much labour or inputs, are not very productive and are full of risks. Improving cattle farming has been challenging as both biophysical and human-resource factors need to be addressed. Feed and water scarcity, diseases and high calf mortality are among the chronic problems of the traditional cattle-farming system, and advisory and animal health services are limited. Losing all calves in one calving period is common, as reported by farmers in Aidabaleten. Low cattle productivity is exacerbated by farmers’ habit of selling cattle when they are in need of cash, not necessarily when they can obtain the best price. Cattle are seen as an accumulative saving that can be sold at any time that the farming family needs cash. Traders offer farmers a price based on an assessment of the body condition, rather than live weight. As farmers tend to have limited or no knowledge of the actual market value, and are in need of cash, they have very little bargaining power in these transactions.

In addition to on-farm adverse conditions and suboptimal practices, cattle farmers have limited access to information and services to support and improve their enterprises. The Timorese Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) put in place an agricultural extension system with specialist technical staff at the subdistrict level and village-level extension officers. However, service provision is mostly limited to technical activities, such as vaccination and veterinary services, that operate only when funded programmes have been launched in a particular area. Hardly any operational funding is allocated to extension officers to do their job, limiting their ability to visit farmers, organize events or produce information materials. They only receive training to enhance their knowledge and skills through specific projects that operate in their area.

4. Redi KAMODI – a community-based, cattle-production innovation platform

Having identified the needs of and opportunities for Timorese family farms to improve and commercialize their cattle enterprises, tested the technological innovations suitable for the local conditions, and realized the limitations of the national agricultural extension system, the Smallholder cattle enterprise development in Timor-Leste project team aimed to design and establish a model for an innovation platform that would serve the dual purpose of adaptive research and RCS. The first principle incorporated in the design was the involvement, or “membership”, of diverse stakeholders in each unit, including cattle farmers, traders, village extension officers and the subdistrict technical staff. This would allow the inclusion of diverse perspectives at all stages and enable all stakeholders to learn from each other. Second, a “unit” would encompass several hamlet-based cells within one village in order to capitalize on the benefits of traditional patterns of social interaction in a community as well as the options for institutional arrangements within the government support system. Third, each unit would need to be managed and facilitated by a management team elected by the members.

During an initial workshop a draft framework of an innovation platform model serving the above purposes and principles was introduced and further developed together with local stakeholder representatives from two pilot municipalities (Bobonaro and Manufahi) and from the MAF. The participants decided to call it Redi KAMODI (redi meaning network and KAMODI being a local abbreviation for Karau ba moris diak, or cattle for better livelihoods). By calling it a “network” the model emphasizes the collaborative nature of the innovation platform and the mutual need to collaborate across stakeholder groups within an organized structure in order to improve the livelihoods of farm families, traders and local service providers alike.

A Redi KAMODI unit is structured based on the following elements:

- > Membership includes farming families from the same village, local traders who operate in that village, the village extension officer, and one to two technical staff from the district-level Department of Livestock. Membership is voluntary and not necessarily based on existing farmer groups. A requirement for membership for farm families is cattle ownership and interest in transitioning their traditional cattle management system into a commercial enterprise.

- > A management team is elected by the members, with positions determined by the members, usually a head, a secretary and a treasurer. It was also suggested that the hamlet-level cells of the village-wide network would have their own management teams.

- > A team of facilitators works with each unit. While the project team invited farmers to be trained as facilitators, they requested that extension officers or the district-level technical staff assume the role of facilitators.

- > Each unit also has an annual workplan that includes co-innovation activities, training for farmers, monthly cell-based meetings and quarterly Redi KAMODI-wide reflection and planning meetings.

The establishment of a village-level Redi KAMODI begins with a community-wide participatory situation analysis to identify and prioritize constraints that hinder cattle productivity, as well as the options to innovate and improve the cattle-production system. Once an initial level of awareness and readiness for change exists within the community, the Redi KAMODI model is introduced, farmers who wish to participate sign up to become a members, and the members discuss and decide on the local management structure and mechanisms. The members receive regular training on technical topics and business skills. Collectively, they conduct experiments or investigations to answer their questions regarding improving their cattle management system. They test and adapt introduced cattle management and marketing innovations to suit their agroecological and socioeconomic conditions and organize collective action such as group cultivation of forages or marketing of cattle.

During the pilot seasons (2016/17), overall coordination was provided by the project researchers while participatory monitoring and evaluation activities were also carried out. Within the expansion phase (2018/20), these responsibilities were handed over to the municipal local governments and the district-level coordinators of the departments of livestock and agricultural extension. With the intention to institutionalize the model within the MAF beyond the project, considerable attention was given to the training of extension and technical staff as well as Redi KAMODI leaders on technical, facilitation, communication and organizational aspects of running a Redi KAMODI.

5. Redi KAMODI pilot and expansion phases

The first Redi KAMODIs were established in 2016 with two pilot groups in the villages of Aidabaleten (in Bobonaro Municipality) and Fatucahi (in Manufahi Municipality), each group having 23 initial members. As shown in Table 1, the majority of farmers in Redi KAMODI groups began to practise improved cattle management practices, such cultivating forage crops (in particular the forage tree legume species Leucaena) to secure feed supply during the dry season. Prior research had shown that under Timorese conditions cattle gain weight faster, hence yielding higher profits, on a diet that includes leguminous forages due to high protein content compared to grasses and other forages. Through collective action, farm families gained direct access to the Dili markets where they could obtain a fair sale price based on cattle live weight. Consequently, profits from cattle production could become much higher compared to the traditional management system. Seeing the success of the farm families during the pilot season encouraged farmers in neighbouring villages and government officials in nearby districts and municipalities to request to be included in the expansion phase.

As shown in Table 1, during 2019/20, the number of Redi KAMODIs expanded to 21 groups, involving almost 700 households across 8 out of the 13 municipalities in Timor-Leste by 2020 and stabilizing at 590 during the post-project phase in 2021. Table 1 also shows that some groups doubled or even tripled in size after their initial establishment, while others shrunk over the monitoring period.

Table 1: Redi KAMODI establishment and implementation from 2016 to 2021

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

The evaluation study described below evidenced that the Redi KAMODI processes transformed the lives of those farm families that were able to capitalize on the Redi KAMODI processes and outputs, through improved knowledge, skills and cattle fattening practices that almost doubled their income compared to the traditional grazing system. Others, however, only observed the Redi KAMODI processes and did not change their practices, and some groups never took off due to a range of reasons described in the next section.

6. Assessing achievements and impact of Redi KAMODI

A participatory evaluation study of the Smallholder cattle enterprise development in Timor-Leste project was implemented in 2022. The study covered all 21 villages with active Redi KAMODIs in the eight municipalities, that is, Bobonaro, Manufahi, Ermera, Ainaro, Covalima, Viqueque, Manatuto and Lautem.

Data collection applied a predominantly qualitative approach to explore the experiences and perspectives of participants. Methods included a review of Redi KAMODI reports, focus group discussions (FGDs) and semistructured interviews with selected stakeholder representatives. In all, 186 participants were involved in the FGDs or interviews, including Redi KAMODI leaders, members, traders and facilitators (extension officers and technical staff of relevant district-level departments) as well as non-Redi KAMODI farmers. Qualitative data generated during the study were analysed using the following approach: (1) interviews in Tentum were transcribed in Bahasa Indonesia and then translated into English; (2) transcripts were coded, and emerging themes were extracted and categorized; and (3) quotes across themes were interpreted for meaning.

The study assessed Redi KAMODI achievements, effectiveness of facilitation and coordination processes allowing Redi KAMODI to function as an innovation platform, and participants’ perspectives about what it would take to institutionalize the Redi KAMODI model as a national RCS strategy. Where appropriate, the quantitative data from monitoring records and reports were correlated with the qualitative data analysis.

7. Redi KAMODI achievements and impacts

Farmers, government staff and researchers alike embraced the structure and processes introduced by the Redi KAMODI model, despite some initial hesitation. The next subsections elaborate on the perspectives of farmers vs those of the facilitators on the achievements and impacts of the Redi KAMODI a year after the project had terminated.

Farmers’ perspectives

Involvement in a Redi KAMODI was reported to have radically transformed farmers’ lives in a positive manner, as expressed by all interviewed Redi KAMODI members. This transformation was attributed to increased income from improved cattle farming practices and enhanced knowledge and skills on business, feed and cattle management. This improved income enabled the farmers to cover their children’s school fees and improve their families’ living conditions. The introduction of a cattle-fattening system that involved tethered or penned animals fed a diet with a high percentage of tree legumes allowed for sales by live weight, while a collective marketing system of fattened bulls directly to slaughterhouses in Dili provided farmers with larger margins. The price increase gained from the new fattening system, in comparison with the traditional grazing system for animals of the same age, ranged from USD 300 to USD 400 per head. This extra margin is a significant improvement in the household economy of smallholder farming families.

Farmers who started practising cattle fattening with a market orientation indicated that involvement in Redi KAMODI helped them to transition from a predominantly subsistence cattle production system to a more commercial system. This transition was enabled by ongoing capacity development activities and collective actions of Redi KAMODI members, such as collective tree planting and marketing. Having experienced these positive achievements, farmers showed willingness to continue implementing the new practices and maintain their involvement in the Redi KAMODI beyond the project life. They were even keen to share their experience with neighbouring villages. These sentiments are illustrated by the following quotes:

I feel happy because this Redi KAMODI programme brings changes in life and gives us knowledge and experience of working to be a cattle farmer (Atabae [Redi KAMODI farmer member], personal interview, 2022).

I feel that the Redi KAMODI programme can change my thinking and [how I deal with] the cattle that I fatten, now that I can determine if and when I want to sell. I already know the price (Asulau-Sare [Redi KAMODI farmer member], personal interview, 2022).

We are here to continue [the Redi KAMODI] and extend it other places, because it supports the needs of the family, to send our children to school, that’s why we want to continue (Rairobo [Redi KAMODI farmer member], personal interview, 2022).

For the neighbouring village, where Redi KAMODI has not yet entered, we are the ones to share the information with them (Leolima [Redi KAMODI farmer member], personal interview, 2022).

The farmers’ intention to continue implementing the new practices beyond the life of the project, after experiencing a shift from subsistence to a more commercial orientation of cattle management, mirrors a study by Lema et al. (2023). Tangible economic benefits that are felt within a reasonable time frame tend to stimulate the internalization of new practices into the existing system and, over time, transform it. Testing and adapting innovations and changing farming practices usually comes with additional cost, labour and risks. Smallholder farmers generally have limited resources and tend to be risk averse. Consequently they retain their practices to avoid large losses in case of failure (D’Exelle and Verschoor, 2023a). Hence, relatively fast and tangible economic benefits is one condition required for an innovation to be accepted by smallholder farmers. In the case of Redi KAMODI, cattle fattening using tree legumes through a cut-and-carry feeding system coupled with improved marketing access and skills has proved to meet this criteria. Moreover, the Redi KAMODI processes allowed the farmers to have ownership over the innovation process and adapt the introduced technologies according to their needs and capabilities, while strengthening their critical skills to enable them to make better informed decisions.

In addition to strengthening farmers’ knowledge and skills through Redi KAMODI processes, transforming their livelihoods was made possible through collective action and teamwork. Farmers reported that Leucaena planting required a lot of effort, from establishing a nursery to building fences, clearing land, transplanting seedlings and maintaining the plantation. Being part of a Redi KAMODI cell and working as a group enabled the farmers to tackle these challenges. The collective action was stimulated through the regular meetings of the Redi KAMODI at the village level, as group-based workplans were made that the Redi KAMODI members committed to, as demonstrated by the following quote:

There [at the meetings], for example, those who keep the cattle there [in the collective pen], we have discussions, how to give feed, and explain to friends who don’t understand. The function of the group is to give each other ideas, make joint workplans (Meligo [Redi KAMODI member], personal interview, 2022).

News of the positive impacts of Redi KAMODI for participating farmers was found to have spread to non-participating farmers. Many already knew about the existence of Redi KAMODI groups and their activities in their community from neighbours who were Redi KAMODI members, which motivated them to join too. Their main motivation was based on the expectation that they would get access to better market opportunities to sell their cattle. They had observed the impressive value Redi KAMODI members were now receiving from of their cattle business.

The farmer experiences presented here show that the Redi KAMODI model functioned well as an innovation platform, in that it facilitated an innovation process by bringing together different actors of the agricultural knowledge and information system to foster the introduction, testing, adaptation and uptake of new ideas and systems through a collaborative effort (Klerkx, van Mierlo and Leeuwis, 2012). The experience also confirmed that farmers tend to accept new ideas better based on influence, information and/or support from peers and relatives (D’Exelle & Verschoor, 2023a). These observations offer a unique opportunity for the Redi KAMODI model to serve as an RCS system in an environment where existing agricultural extension services lack resources and the capacity to facilitate adaptive innovation and system transformation.

The facilitators’ perspectives

Government officials who served as facilitators, that is, district-level technical staff and village-level extension officers, also reported positive impacts from participating in Redi KAMODI processes. The impacts they felt predominantly referred to improved knowledge and skills relating to both technical livestock management topics and innovation platform facilitation aspects. Respondents expressed gratitude for and pride in their improved capacity as Redi KAMODI facilitators, which evolved from not having no knowledge about the role to being able to facilitate the Redi KAMODI innovation processes and support farmers in developing improved cattle-fattening enterprises. The following quotes demonstrate this sentiment:

Personally, I feel grateful because this Redi KAMODI programme has given me incredible things. Apart from numerous trainings we received, we were also involved in direct fieldwork. There are new topics I learned about, like communication and cattle management. For me, communication is very important because with better communication we can collaborate well with farmers (Aidabaleten [technical staff member], personal interview, 2022).

I got many trainings from different resource persons on both theoretical and practical topics; hence, I feel blessed to participate in the Redi KAMODI programme, from knowing nothing until now I can run [a cattle-fattening] enterprise myself (Ainaro [technical staff member], personal interview, 2022).

In addition to becoming better service providers, the Redi KAMODI facilitators also became better farmers, as many government officials are also farmers.

8. Redi KAMODI as a co-innovation platform

The evaluation of the pilot and first expansion Redi KAMODI groups that materialized during the Smallholder cattle enterprise development in Timor-Leste project showed that the model offered a workable structure and effective facilitation and capacity-building processes to serve as an innovation platform where members collaboratively innovate the cattle-management system under the prevailing Timorese production, marketing and institutional conditions. Both farmers and facilitators enhanced their knowledge and skills, ranging from technical cattle-production practices and business and marketing skills to facilitation, communication and organizational management. This study identified two main contributing factors to this success that are further discussed in the following subsections: (1) Redi KAMODI establishment, based on participation and shared ownership, and (2) Redi KAMODI implementation, based on multistakeholder processes.

Establishment based on participation and shared ownership

Analysis of the evaluation study results indicated that the achievements of the Redi KAMODI in Timor-Leste can, for a large part, be attributed to the application of a participatory approach in the establishment of the innovation platform. The involvement of farmers and local traders in the initial situation analysis enabled them to identify problems and opportunities to improve cattle farming productivity while enhancing their awareness of the options to improve their livelihoods. This confirmed that a community-based assessment of needs and opportunities can serve as an entry point for the active involvement in change processes of farmers and other stakeholders (van de Fliert and Braun, 2002). Farmers, facilitators and local government officials and researchers alike felt ownership over the structures and processes of the Redi KAMODI as participation was voluntary, and structures and workplans were determined and developed by the members themselves. This is in line with the findings of Okali, Sumberg and Farrington (1994) that greater participant involvement in the process makes agricultural research, development and extension more effective. As also concluded by Chambers (1994) and Petheram (2000), the higher the level of farmer participation, the closer the outcome will come to suiting farmers’ needs and conditions.

Once the Redi KAMODI was established, all stakeholders continued to be involved throughout the planning, research and analysis processes. Farmer involvement in defining the problem informed the research questions, which consequently reduced resistance by farmers to try out, adapt and internalize new practices and ideas. Collective action helped to minimize risk. The quarterly reflection and planning workshops supported ongoing participation and collective decision-making and action. Establishing feedback mechanism in innovation platform processes is crucial to enhance the efficacy to sustain activities and deliver impacts beyond the project life (Lema et al., 2023). The Redi KAMODI reflective workshops served as a space to draw conclusions on findings of the previous period, while posing new questions to be answered during the next period.

Implementation based on multistakeholder processes

In agricultural innovation systems, addressing specific challenges requires the participation of different actors and their networks (Klerkx, Hall and Leeuwis, 2009). Those different actors may come from different disciplines or interests, and as such often need an intermediary party to facilitate the exchange and collaboration. The evaluation study showed that establishing the initial pilot Redi KAMODI units into well-functioning innovation platforms required the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including farmers, traders and MAF facilitators as Redi KAMODI members, as well as researchers from various disciplines to allow for a farming-systems-oriented research agenda. This meant that not only were technical forage and cattle-management problems being solved, but also socioeconomic and business aspects were explored. Each actor serves as a catalyst for a particular focus (Kamara, Lalani and Dorward 2023), but together they are connecting the dots into a holistic understanding of the options for change. In the Redi KAMODI pilot phase, the project-management team still played the role of connecting participating parties as they had to allocate the resources. This alerted the team to the need to identify ways to hand over these roles to the existing institutional structures of the MAF and the communities in order to ensure sustainability.

Substantial effort was made to ensure that the team of MAF researchers, field researchers and Redi KAMODI facilitators had a shared understanding of the Redi KAMODI structure, principles and processes, and understood the participatory approach to facilitate the Redi KAMODI processes. Specific workshops using simulation, discussion and reflection were held to achieve this. Despite the various efforts to turn the conventional ways of running a project around, the two pilot sites experienced a slow start as many actors were not used to a participatory approach and needed time to experience and reflect on the changes over several seasons. This proved that participation needs to be learned and cannot be imposed. The integration of a participatory approach into the operationalization of research for development initiatives requires ongoing capacity building, the establishment of a communication forum, and ownership over the process as the main incentive. The confusion over the operationalization of the participatory approach subsided after researchers from different backgrounds got involved in the participatory planning workshops, training events and other joint activities, as they realized they were all learning together.

Over the four project years of the Redi KAMODI pilot and initial expansion, the platform had become a hub to facilitate horizontal communication between government staff, farmers and related value-chain stakeholders, resulting in mutually beneficial relationships. Therefore, it can be concluded that rural families’ participation in innovation and rural development through the Redi KAMODI enabled farmer empowerment and changes towards sustainable practices in a collective manner, hence strengthening communities as well. This suggests that the Redi KAMODI could serve as a model to rethink the national agricultural extension system to become an RCS system that more effectively addresses the needs of family farmers under limited-resource conditions towards improved and sustainable livelihoods. The next section explores the opportunities and barriers for this within the Timorese context.

9. Redi KAMODI as a rural communication services system

To facilitate co-innovation, the Redi KAMODI functioned as a platform to provide information and training to stakeholders, and to support dialogue and collective action. Redi KAMODI facilitators had received intensive capacity-development training from the project, including technical training, facilitation- and communication-skills development, and organizational management. Through these facilitators, farmers received regular training on technical topics and critical business skills. Farmers were supported to collectively experiment in order to answer the questions that they had and adapt introduced innovations according to their farm-based conditions.

Guided by the principles of being demand- and local-context driven, and shaped by participatory approaches and strategies, these functions can be captured as core elements of RCS. The processes demonstrated a valuable alternative to the existing agricultural system that was barely operational for the livestock sector. However, to claim Redi KAMODI as a model for RCS, it needs to be institutionalized within suitable organisational structures that can sustain the facilitation of these processes beyond a project. This study identified three main requirements for the institutionalization of Redi KAMODI: (1) establishment of facilitation capacity at the village level, (2) leadership capacity to coordinate a nationwide Redi KAMODI programme, and (3) availability of financial, physical and human resources.

First, capacity building of facilitators was offered in the form of a training-of-facilitators, and refresher training was offered after one year. The team experienced that on-site training at district level was the most effective and financially feasible training option. To support the training-of-facilitators and ensure that the national team could continue offering this training beyond the project, a training manual and several types of media, including short videos, were developed.

Second, leadership capacity at all levels appeared to be crucial for the expansion of the pilot sites. Respondents in the project evaluation indicated the importance of good collaboration between Redi KAMODI facilitators and leaders at the national and municipality level. In some instances, local leaders put in place local regulations needed to allow innovations to be implemented, such as a ban on free-ranging cattle that would destroy forage plantations, which in turn would demotivate farmers to continue with the new practices. Moreover, strong and knowledgeable leadership at the highest level possible is needed for the institutionalization of Redi KAMODI at a national level and across sectors. While discussions in this regard were held during the final stages of and even beyond the project period, limited funding opportunities have prevented this from happening to date.

The third requirement to institutionalize the Redi KAMODI model as a national programme is the availability of financial, physical and human resources, at least at the municipal level, and stipulated in the form of an operational budget, supporting materials and allocated personnel that will have to undergo the training-of-facilitators first. At the national level, resources would need to be allocated for a coordinating position. Respondents of the evaluation study representing local government departments acknowledged the importance of an operational budget to support Redi KAMODI facilitation activities. Traditionally, local governments have a very limited operational budget, but a large working area to cover. Hence, they expect funds on special projects from the MAF or external sources. However, for true institutionalization, the project-based operation would need to be replaced by a system that is embedded into the existing structures and that can be sustained with ongoing funding.

10. Conclusion

This chapter aimed to offer insights into how Redi KAMODI, as a model for RCS based on co-innovation processes, was able to guide farmers to become independent cattle producers and business managers, while simultaneously turning government extension officers into facilitators of change. Evidence in this study has shown that Redi KAMODI processes have transformed farmers’ and government facilitators’ lives through enhanced knowledge, skills and practices that then translated into improved cattle-management practices. The changed farming practices have subsequently transitioned family farms from subsistence-based farming systems into more commercial farming systems that almost doubled their income, compared to the traditional grazing system.

The transformation of farmers’ lives through their participation in Redi KAMODI was enabled by processes that started with a community-based situation analysis as an entry point to engage with stakeholders and, at the same time, to collectively identify constraints and opportunities to improve cattle productivity. For further processes, emphasis was put on facilitation and training to improve farmers’ and local facilitators’ capacity in technical, facilitation, business and marketing aspects. The Redi KAMODI platform has become a hub to facilitate horizontal communication between government staff, farmers and related value-chain stakeholders resulting in mutually beneficial relationships. Therefore, it can be concluded that rural families’ participation in innovation development through the Redi KAMODI has enabled a collective process of farmer empowerment and sustainable change in practices, hence strengthening communities. The Redi KAMODI can serve as a model to rethink the national agricultural extension system as an RCS. It shows efficacy in addressing the needs of family farmers under limited-resource conditions to move towards improved livelihoods in a sustainable manner. However, this will require a shift in the mindset of the research and development community in Timor-Leste from project-based development to one of sufficiently resourced institutionalized structures and processes.

References

Ayele, S., Duncan, A., Larbi, A. & Khanh, T.T. 2012. Enhancing innovation in livestock value chains through networks: Lessons from fodder innovation case studies in developing countries. Sci. Public Policy, 39(3): 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/SCIPOL/SCS022

Bentley, J.W. 1994. Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research. Agric. Hum. Values, 11(2): 140–150.

Bettencourt, E.M.V., Tilman, M., Narciso, V., da Silva Carvalho, M.L. & de Sousa Henriques, P.D. 2015. The livestock roles in the wellbeing of rural communities of Timor-Leste. Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural, 53: S063–S080. https://doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790053S01005

Chambers, R. 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7): 953–969.

Chambers, R. & Jiggins, J. 1987. Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers Part I: transfer-of-technology and farming systems research. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 27(1): 35–52.

D’Exelle, B. & Verschoor, A. 2023. Village networks and entrepreneurial farming in Uganda. World Dev., 167: 106241. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2023.106241

Farrington, J. 1989. Farmer participation in agricultural research. Food Policy, 14(2): 97–100.

Hellin, J. 2012. Agricultural extension, collective action and innovation systems: Lessons on network brokering from Peru and Mexico. J. Agric. Educ. Ext., 18(2): 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.655967

Huesca, R. 2008. Tracing the history of participatory communication approaches to development: a critical appraisal. In: J. Servaes, ed. Communication for development and social change. London, SAGE Publications.

Islam, S., Saif, S.S., Maiden, J. & Raab, R. 2016. Strengthening agricultural markets to enhance food security in Timor-Leste. In: Nesbitt, H., Erskine, W., da Cruz, C.J., Moorhead, A., eds. Food Security in Timor-Leste Through Crop Production. Proceedings Of TimorAg2016, International Conference, 13–15 April 2016. Dili, Timor-Leste, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. https://www.aciar.gov.au/node/12701

Kamara, L.I., Lalani, B. & Dorward, P. 2023. Towards agricultural innovation systems: Actors, roles, linkages and constraints in the system of rice intensification (SRI) in Sierra Leone. Sci. Afr., 19: e01576. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIAF.2023.E01576

Kilelu, C. W., Klerkx, L. & Leeuwis, C. 2013. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agric. Syst., 118: 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.03.003

Klerkx, L., Hall, A. & Leeuwis, C. 2009. Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol., 8(5–6): 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2009.032643

Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B. & Leeuwis, C. 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B., eds. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Dordrecht, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20

Langen, D. 2016. Agricultural extension in Timor-Leste: experience of the Fourth Rural Development Program (RDP IV). In: Nesbitt, H., Erskine, W., da Cruz, C.J., Moorhead, A., eds. Food Security in Timor-Leste Through Crop Production. Proceedings Of TimorAg2016, International Conference, 13–15 April 2016. Dili, Timor-Leste, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). https://www.aciar.gov.au/node/12701

Lema, Z., Lobry de Bruyn, L.A., Marshall, G.R., Roschinsky, R. & Duncan, A.J. 2021. Multilevel innovation platforms for development of smallholder livestock systems: How effective are they? Agric. Syst., 189: 103047 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGSY.2020.103047

Lema, Z., Lobry de Bruyn, L.A., Marshall, G.R., Roschinsky, R., Gebreyes, M. & Duncan, A.J. 2023. The influence of multilevel innovation platforms on continuing utilization of smallholders’ livestock feeding practices. Innov. Dev., 14(2): 357–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2023.2178877

Lisson, S., MacLeod, N., McDonald, C., Corfield, J., Pengelly, B., Wirajaswadi, L., Rahman et al. 2010. A participatory, farming systems approach to improving Bali cattle production in the smallholder crop–livestock systems of Eastern Indonesia. Agric. Syst., 103(7): 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGSY.2010.05.002

Morris, N. 2003. A comparative analysis of the diffusion and participatory models in development communication. Commun. Theory, 13(2): 225–248.

Murray-Prior, R., Jennings, J. & King, C. 2006. Our Australian idol – Joan Tully. ExtensionNet, 14(2): 1–12.

Okali, C., Sumberg, J. & Farrington, J. 1994. Farmer participatory research, rhetoric and reality. London, Intermediate Technology Publication on behalf of the Overseas Development Institute.

Petheram, R.J. 2000. Introduction and review. In: J. R. Petheram, ed. A manual of tools for participatory R&D in dryland cropping areas. Creswick, Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.

Poppi, D., Fordyce, G., Panjaitan, T., Dahlanuddin & Quigley, S. 2011. Developing an integrated production system for Bali cattle in the eastern islands of Indonesia. In: B. Winter, ed. Beef production in crop-livestock systems: simple approaches for complex problems. Canberra, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.

Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of innovations (5th edition). New York, Free Press.

Röling, N.G. & van de Fliert, E. 1998. Introducing integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia: a pioneering attempt to facilitate large-scale change. In: N. G. Roling & M.A.E. Wagemakers, eds. Facilitating sustainable agriculture: participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Servaes, J. 1999. Communication for development: one world multiple cultures. New Jersey, Hampton Press, Inc.

Servaes, J. 2003. Approach to development: studies on communication for development. Paris, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

Servaes, J. & Malikhao, P. 2008. Development communication: approaches in an international perspective. In: J. Servaes, ed. Communication for Development and Social Change. New Delhi, SAGE India.

Schut, M., van Asten, P., Okafor, C., Hicintuka, C., Mapatano, S., Nabahungu, N. L., Kagabo, D. et al. 2016. Sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the Central African Highlands: The need for institutional innovation. Agric. Syst., 145: 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGSY.2016.03.005

Sumberg, J., Okali, C. & Reece, D. 2003. Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations. Agric. Syst., 76(2): 739–753.

van de Fliert, E. 2010. Participatory communication in rural development: What does it take for the established order? Extension Farming Systems Journal 6(1): 95–100.

van de Fliert, E. 2014. Participation in Theory and Practice. In: Thomas, P.N. & van de Fliert, E. Interrogating the Theory and Practice of Communication for Social Change. Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

van de Fliert, E. & Braun, A.R. 2002. Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: from opportunities to impact. Agric. Hum. Values, 19(1): 25–38.

van de Fliert, E., Christiana, B., Hendayana, R. & Murray-Prior, R. 2010. Pilot Roll-Out: adaptive research in farmers’ worlds. Extension Farming Systems Journal, 6(1): 63–72.

World Bank Group. 2024. Timor-Leste. https://data.worldbank.org/country/timor-leste [Accessed 25 August 2024]

[1] This project was called Smallholder cattle enterprise development in Timor-Leste (LPS/2014/038), and was funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Chapter 4

Weaving people together: perspectives from an agricultural innovation system diagnostic in Mpumalanga, South Africa

Authors:

Tim Fry

University of Reading, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. Introduction

This chapter presents key findings from a participatory action research study undertaken in 2023 that investigated the influence of neocolonial and neoliberal path dependencies on the equity of Mpumalanga’s agricultural education and training (AET) system. The study utilized an agricultural innovation system (AIS) lens to assess the institutional environment for communication processes within Mpumalanga’s AET system and to add to the evidence base for rural communication services (RCS) as a systemic enabler for equitable development. This system evaluation further sought to support decision-making by all system actors by elucidating where there are underutilized resources, networks and relationships that can be leveraged to increase systemic adaptive capabilities in response to climate change.

The research facilitated collective reflection by a multistakeholder group (using Freirean regenerative themes) on the role of AET as a system-enabling mechanism that supports multidimensional communication. Research methods included incorporating considerations of the influence of neoliberal path dependencies to provide a dynamic window to assess the quality and equity of communication processes and the extent to which these are enabled or hindered by the actors, infrastructures and economic and regulatory norms that constitute Mpumalanga’s AIS. The study identified that neoliberal economic structures and discursive resonance around production pathways for smallholder development have effectively blocked communication services from enabling interactions between actors with varied knowledge, resources and skills. Further, the study identified that structures that support industrial agriculture have been strengthened, while it is apparent that there is an absence of structures that enable interactions between groups to identify opportunities to increase systemic resilience. The results seem to indicate that to equitably combat novel and ongoing wicked problems, greater focus must be placed on developing multistakeholder and multilevel communication processes that bring diverse actors together around shared priorities and complementary access to resources, skills and knowledge.

2. Setting the focus, boundaries and framework for the study

This study explored the equity and functioning of Mpumalanga’s AET system by deploying an AIS diagnostic lens. This builds upon the definition of an AIS as being:

a network of organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect the way different agents interact, share, access, exchange and use knowledge (Hall et al., 2006. pp. 6–7).

Further, an AIS lens views innovation as a process of combined non-technological processes (such as social processes) and technological changes (such as cultivars, fertilizer and agronomic practices) (Hounkonnou et al., 2012; Leeuwis, 2004). As an entry point from which to evaluate the equity of AET and RCS, the study took a structural–functional diagnostic approach to Mpumalanga’s AIS to understand how actors; infrastructures; interactions; and economic, regulatory and normative institutions in Mpumalanga influence the presence and quality of communication processes that support innovative capabilities. Building on AIS diagnostic methodologies (Aerni et al., 2015; Lamprinopoulou et al., 2014; Schut et al., 2015), this structural–functional framework enables the mapping of AIS structures to provide a basis from which to identify elements that cause weakness or deficiencies in rural communication processes (Acunzo et al., 2014; Minh, 2019).

Building on evaluation methodologies used for RCS (Torres et al., 2017), this AIS lens sought to support decision-making by AET and food system stakeholders by providing critical reflection on processes of complex change. As such, this study’s lens and participatory action research methods aimed to facilitate social learning between multistakeholder groups to understand inequities in access to resources and what communication processes are required to support transformative actions (Torres et al., 2017).

National, provincial and AET focus

The study was conducted in the province of Mpumalanga. Mpumalanga, situated in the eastern part of South Africa, covers a total land area of 76 495 km2 (approximately 6.3 percent of the total land area of South Africa). Mpumalanga contains three agroecological zones – a highveld, a midveld and a lowveld, each characterized by climate variations due to differing elevation levels (Sambo et al., 2023) (see Figure 1). The highveld, at an altitude between 1 500 and 2 100 m above sea level, is the largest and wettest zone, averaging about 800 mm of rainfall per annum (Schulze, 2010), with the most fertile soils in Mpumalanga. The midveld lies at altitudes between 600 and 1200 m above sea level and is characterized by open grasslands. Finally, the lowveld lies at an elevation less than 600 m above sea level and has an annual average rainfall of 500 mm. The lowveld is South Africa’s biggest producer of citrus fruit, while more than half of South Africa’s soya bean crop is produced in Mpumalanga’s highveld (DEDET, 2022).

Approximately 80 percent of South Africa’s rural population attain their livelihood from agriculture (Baiphethi and Jacobs, 2009), with around 25 percent of South Africans living below the food-poverty line (Modjadji and Madiba, 2019). Like much of South Africa, Mpumalanga is characterized by a significant disparity in its citizens’ income and living standards and faces a triple challenge of unemployment, inequality and poverty. Inequalities are strongly correlated with race and rural–urban divides, as South Africa continues to be influenced by the ongoing legacy of apartheid (Ainslie, 2003). Rainfed agriculture is a significant source of income and food security for family farmers in Mpumalanga (Mkuhlani et al., 2020), and Mpumalanga’s food system has entrenched vulnerabilities that are exacerbated by the increasing frequency of extreme weather events that influence agricultural resilience. Further, actors within Mpumalanga’s food system face increased exposure to transboundary pests and diseases, in part due to Mpumalanga’s extensive national and international borders, including those with Limpopo, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and the Free State Provinces in South Africa, and those with Mozambique and Eswatini.

Combating such systemic vulnerabilities requires increases in individual, organizational and systemic capabilities to adapt and develop solutions to novel and ongoing problems that affect all stakeholders in Mpumalanga’s food system. Dynamic agricultural capabilities are primarily developed through responsive AET and research systems. While there has been a shift towards participatory and systemic approaches to tackling food system challenges, the South African state-led AET system has changed little since its establishment – part of the ongoing legacy of colonialism (Swanepoel et al., 2014). Poorly integrated and often ineffective AET services, paradigms of linear technology transfer, diminishing budgets and political instability have contributed to the inability of South Africa’s AET services to replicate the performance of similar, but more successful, systems such as those of India and Thailand (Edquist, 2010; Eicher, 2006). While paradigms of linear transfer of technologies remain prevalent in South Africa (Pamuk et al., 2013), a growing movement exists to better integrate systemic theories and practices into AET. This draws upon the recognition that for AET to respond to collectively diagnosed problems and develop acceptable solutions, integrated approaches (Zwane and Davis, 2017) that include a diversity of knowledge bases and forms of learning are required (Swanepoel et al., 2014; World Bank, 2006).

System, spatial and commodity-chain boundaries

The study’s focus on determining systemic RCS blockages affecting AET within Mpumalanga required that system boundaries be established. This, in turn, required identifying system parts and examining how these shape the system’s equity and communication capacities. As such, how the system boundary of the study was set was of particular importance, as the study’s boundary definition would affect what interactions were examined and which actors, structural features and functional processes were given preference.

The setting of this system boundary was initiated by the context of AET in Mpumalanga and, particularly, the outcomes to which AET seeks to contribute. As the economic, environmental and social contexts of farming become more turbulent, increasing individual, organizational and systemic capabilities to adapt and develop solutions to a myriad of problems are required. In response to such needs, AET must build systemic capacities to identify, develop and scale shared solutions to wicked challenges. Such challenges have developed from an interplay of biophysical, technological, sociocultural, economic, institutional and political dimensions (Schut et al., 2014) and are interrelated within and between different levels of Mpumalanga’s AIS (Dondofema and Grobbelaar, 2019; Geels, 2006; Giller et al., 2008). This fluidity in determining the supra- and subsystems that affect Mpumalanga’s AIS posed a boundary-definition challenge. Responding to this methodological challenge, the study deployed spatial and commodity-specific structures to sharpen the focus of the investigation.

The study focused on Mpumalanga’s AET and where, how and for whom it provides innovative capabilities, allowing for initially clear spatial boundaries. However, while the study’s spatial boundary was set primarily within the province of Mpumalanga, a semifluid spatial boundary was deployed to incorporate stakeholders with an external influence on Mpumalanga’s AET, such as national-level policymakers and industry groups. Further, AET’s multilevel, intercommodity focus and the integration of formal and informal learning sources required a boundary covering multistakeholder interactions across different levels and including economic, cultural, political and environmental dimensions (Edquist, 2010). This further broadened the spatial boundary to include stakeholders with interest and influence over Mpumalanga’s cultural, economic and environmental systems.

Mpumalanga’s heterogeneous food system further challenged the study’s boundaries. As the study sought to determine systemic blockages within Mpumalanga’s AET, it was not directly concerned with specific crops or value-chains. However, to ensure that data collected could identify specific innovation entry points that study participants could utilize, two commodity chains were focused on. Using a matrix of biophysical versus management complexity (see Figure 1) developed by Archer et al. (2009), citrus and maize systems were selected to guide the boundary definition. These systems were selected due to their contrasting biophysical and management complexity levels. The selection of these two commodity foci was further informed by their significant importance to agricultural production in Mpumalanga (DARDLEA, 2021).

Figure 1. Supply-chain complexity matrix

Source: Adapted from Archer, A.A., Higgins, A., Thorburn, P. 2009. A method for comprehending and adapting complex supply chains in agriculture. In: J. Chain Netw. Sci. 9, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2009.x136

Structural–functional framework

Following the boundary definitions, the next step in this AIS diagnostic is to identify the structural conditions that enable or constrain innovation in Mpumalanga’s AET system (Schut et al., 2015). As such, this study’s framework first considers four structural components:

1. actors: individuals and organizations learning and using new ways of working and new operating methods (Hall, 2005; Lamontagne-Godwin et al., 2019);

2. institutions: shared habits and routines used by actors organized by cognitive, regulatory and normative systems (Toillier et al., 2021; Turner et al., 2014);

3. interactions: networking and engagement mechanisms, enabled by innovation support service providers (Faure et al., 2019; Klerkx et al., 2009) through facilitated activities that aid interactive learning and negotiation (Leeuwis and van den Ban, 2004);

4. infrastructures: physical, knowledge and financial assets and resources.

Using the categorization of actors and their roles of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2022), this initial structural framework identifies actors who influence AET in Mpumalanga (Table 1).

Table 1. Actor categories and roles

Actors/subcategories

Potential roles

Farmer organizations

Promoting specific innovation through collaborative research, providing advisory services

Representing farmers (interests, needs, opportunities) in value-chains and in community and policy arenas

Facilitating access to agricultural inputs, credit and markets

Advisory services (private, non-governmental and public)

Brokerage between farmers and other actors

Enabling communication between agricultural system actors

Forging networks and supporting farmer organizations

Education institutes

Improving the education level of all actors

Education and training of professionals in the agriculture sector

Development of knowledge and skills for farmers and other actors

Researchers (public, non-governmental, private and universities)

Developing and improving technologies, practices and processes relevant to local/regional/national contexts

Testing and validation of technologies, processes, theories and practices

Documenting the ways new practices and technologies are adapted

Policymakers

Formulating, implementing and enforcing strategies, policies and regulations

Allocating resources for research and human resource development

Enabling networks and partnerships

Source: Adapted from FAO. 2022. Assessing agricultural innovation systems for action at country level – a preliminary framework. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0614en

Building on this structural framework, the inclusion of AIS functions makes it possible to understand the interlinkages between innovation-system structures and how these interlinkages affect the provision of communication processes among actors engaged in generating, exchanging and using knowledge (Hermans et al., 2013; Spielman et al., 2009). The mapping of functions, seen as the activities that take place in innovation systems, draws from the typologies of Bergek et al. (2008) and Hekkert et al. (2007) and the identification of innovation support services by Mathe et al. (2016). The functions identified in this study focus on activities contributing to developing individual, organizational and systemic innovative capabilities within AET. They are:

1. awareness, development and exchange of knowledge: development of codified and tacit knowledge in formal and informal settings, provision of knowledge inputs to the innovation process, and demand-side activities (Edquist, 2010; Sumberg and Reece, 2004);

2. advisory, consultancy and backstopping: identification and articulation of knowledge, priorities, roles and resource-specific needs (Smits, 2002), market demand, and provision of technical, legal, economic, environmental and social advice (Mathe et al., 2016);

3. networks, facilitation and brokerage: multi- and mono-level stimulation and assistance between stakeholders to improve the quality of interactions, facilitation of networks, and conflict management between stakeholders (Mathe et al., 2016);

4. capacity building: theory-based and interactive learning processes for individuals and organizations (Borrás and Edquist, 2013) aimed at increasing innovation actors’ capacities.

The combination of structural and functional frameworks allows for identifying the presence, absence and quality of system structures and exploring how structures affect AET communication processes. Further, this framework provides a tool to elucidate generic and specific innovation entry windows by identifying actors with complementary priorities and capabilities. This coupled framework was used to develop research tools, including interview and focus-group protocols, and to facilitate a multistakeholder workshop that gathered feedback on study findings.

Table 2. Combined structural-functional framework

Structures

Actors

Institutions

Interactions

Infrastructures

Which structural components contribute to the realization of functions and to the presence/absence or capability/ quality of each structural component?

Functions

Awareness, development and exchange of knowledge

Advisory, consultancy and backstopping

Networks, facilitation and brokerage

Capacity building

What functions are performed by AET stakeholders, and how well do these support innovative capabilities at individual, organizational and systems levels?

Combined analysis

Which structures (dis)enable which functions, for whom, and how?
Which functions support the development of innovative capabilities, for whom, and how?
Which complementary structures could further support functions?

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

3. Methods

Data collection

Data was collected using semistructured interviews, focus groups and a reflexive and visioning workshop. The research framework was elaborated upon following reviews of grey literature about Mpumalanga’s AET and its citrus and maize subsystems. Semistructured interviews allowed for sufficient flexibility to explore stakeholder-specific comments and for the interviewee to discuss topics of interest, creating more reflexive interviews (Bruges and Smith, 2009). Half (19) of the interviews and one focus group were held in person, either at the University of Mpumalanga or at the offices and farms of participant’s organizations, with other interviews and focus groups taking place online. Of the 38 participants, 20 were male and 18 were female.

Table 3. Study participants

Stakeholder groups

Diversity within stakeholder groups

Number of participants

1. Farmer organizations

Industry bodies, smallholder associations, non-governmental organizations

14

2. Training providers

University lecturers, non-governmental organizations, governmental bodies, industry bodies

13

3. Government and funding bodies

Policymakers, extension officers, commodity and development funders

5

4. Researchers

Government, university, private and commodity association researchers

6

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Twenty-four semistructured interviews were conducted between 13 July and 29 August 2023, and two focus groups held between 6 and 11 August. The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 2 hours. Rapid analysis of findings was undertaken to allow for findings to be discussed by participants in a workshop held at the University of Mpumalanga on 15 August. The hybrid workshop presented key findings and was used to facilitate multistakeholder analysis of findings.

Table 4. Workshop participants

Stakeholder group

In-person workshop participants

Online workshop participants

1. Farmer organizations

3

5

2. Training providers

4

2

3. Government and funding bodies

4

3

4. Researchers

4

3

Source: Author’s own elaboration

Data analysis

The interviews, focus groups and the workshop were recorded (with the consent of the participants), with data analysis starting with the production of transcripts. Transcribed data were initially coded according to the structural–functional framework, with emerging codes assigned to text containing similar content. Codes were organized into code families to obtain thematic categories. Predefined codes included concepts such as “resources”, “regulations”, “service providers” and “experimental infrastructures”. Other emergent concepts were added as the study progressed. Both predefined and emergent themes were grouped into codes and categories. As such, both deductive and inductive coding strategies informed data analysis.

4. Results

Neoliberal and neocolonial path dependencies

Diagnosing Mpumalanga’s AIS can help identify how RCS can help bridge the growing divides between the agricultural industry and smallholder farmers, between urban and rural zones, and between diverse value and knowledge centres (FAO, 2017). However, gaining a more nuanced understanding of the equity and effectiveness of Mpumalanga’s AIS requires considerations of power and access (Kok and Klerkx, 2023). As such, this results section first elucidates where neoliberal and neocolonial-influenced structural developments have established path dependencies, shedding light on how access to RCS has been shaped. This section also provides an analysis of how structural developments have contributed to system vulnerabilities by offering both macro-historic and localized perspectives. This allows for longer-term historical views of the distribution of resources to be combined with localized constructions on what RCS processes can support actors’ innovative capabilities.

The liberalization and deregulation of the post-apartheid South African economy enabled the development of macroeconomic structures centred around private commodity associations that rely on vertical integration (Siddle, 2018). Austere monetary policies (Bond and Malikane, 2019; Mali and Sheefeni, 2023) and the outsourcing of state functions (Robins, 2005) created structural conditions that have developed a dichotomous smallholder–industrial agrosystem dominated by powerful agribusinesses (Sihlobo, 2023). This is because the state’s political disengagement in agriculture, coupled with corporate land grabbing and the privatization of genetic resources, have prioritized corporate interests and neocolonial economic agendas (Fischer, 2022). This structurally advantageous environment for business interests has inculcated corporatization and financialization in the agriculture sector and excluded small-scale farmers from equitable participation in local and national markets, with agrifood market restructuring further increasing the barriers to entry for the marginalized producers (DALRRD, 2020a). Such economic neoliberal reforms, bolstered by discursive and normative paradigms of entrepreneurship and technological determinism (Moodley, 2005; Storey, 2018), have established structural path dependencies that influence the equity of RCS in Mpumalanga.

Further strengthening the environment for industrial agriculture are normative and cognitive paradigms that hold large-scale commercial farm production as the desired developmental goal for rural smallholders (Hajdu et al., 2012). The increasing focus on sustainable agriculture and food security has seen momentum build among donors for a new green revolution in Africa (Elhassnaoui et al., 2023; Fischer, 2022). This predominantly envisions “a more capital intensive approach to agriculture involving supply chains of input suppliers, increasingly large producers, agro-processors, and expanding international markets” (Moseley et al., 2015, pp. 1–7). However, as articulated by Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Kerr (2014), technological deterministic and monofunctional economic development can be counterproductive in smallholding contexts. Imposing industrial practices on smallholders (for example, prioritizing the cultivation of a single cash crop over a basket of food) can reduce household food security while exposing smallholder farmers to macroeconomic and environmental risks in ways that are mitigated by diversified food-crop production (Amekawa et al., 2010; Stringer et al., 2020). As highlighted later in this chapter, neoliberal and neocolonial path dependencies have led to Mpumalanga having insufficient RCS processes to enable AET to support the multifunctionality and diversity of smallholder farmers. In particular, AET communication processes are either inaccessible to smallholder farmers or inadequate to support their attempts to build resilience to market and climactic shocks and develop greater livelihood and food security resilience by spreading risks (Ellis, 1999; Hajdu et al., 2012).

These combined structural, normative and cognitive pathways produce a frame through which a limited number of economic-centric, productivist and technological determinist communication processes and AET pedagogies are legitimized, often at the expense of other developmental theories and practices (Bidegain Ponte and Enríquez, 2016; Hajdu et al., 2012). The maintenance of these paradigms has stymied the development of social and ecologically focused communication processes that enable multistakeholder identification of common challenges and the co-development of shared solutions. Commodity-specific approaches that drive monofunctional agriculture have been provided with material, political and discursive support. This support has been provided both directly, through financial support from vertically integrated and centralized consumer bodies that control access to value-chains, and indirectly, through the withdrawal of public services, leading to stronger roles for private support for farmers that focuses on economic growth. Further, the green revolution has led to paradigms of techno-determinism and economic growth being seen as the drivers of poverty reduction, contributing to the targeting of food-system support for cash crops, rather than for farming that is socially and ecologically resilient and livelihood-secure. This framework centres development around commodity-specific economic efficiencies and influences, for which RCS provides legitimacy and resources.

Neoliberal path dependencies have thus developed a system based on industrial agriculture and monodimensional economic development. As we will see in the following section, this has influenced who can access AET and how support for commodity-specific industrial silos over universally delivered RCS has led to an absence of multidirectional communication processes. It will further show how institutional commitment to delivering RCS is required to overcome this system blockage to better support individual, organizational and system innovative capabilities by “facilitating equitable access to knowledge and information, social inclusion in decision-making” (Torres et al., 2017, p. 2).

AET and poor-quality systemic communication processes

As highlighted in the previous section, neoliberal structural developments have contributed to an absence of public processes that structure social interactions around new ideas and approaches in ways that inform AET agendas and curricula (Eicher, 2006; Torres et al., 2017). While industry-specific communication processes exist that strengthen decision-making capabilities along value-chains, there is limited communication between multidimensional AET stakeholders in Mpumalanga. Non-existent linkages between actors across Mpumalanga’s economic, cultural and social systems have led to failures in identifying and capitalizing on complementary access to resources, skills and networks. This lack of multistakeholder access to equitable communication weakens the systemic capacity to respond to ongoing and novel wicked challenges by hindering collective diagnoses of complex multilevel problems that affect the entire food system (Herrero et al., 2021; Schut et al., 2015).

Poor-quality communication between codified and experiential learning providers and those reliant on developing high-quality human resources hinders the effectiveness of Mpumalanga’s AET at all levels. Between secondary schools, technical and vocational education centres, and universities, there are often mismatches in required and produced skills, challenging the formal education sector’s ability to meet educational attainment targets.

There are also limited communication platforms that enable social learning between universities and employers, leading to curricula and pedagogical approaches being developed in silos. The absence of such communication platforms contributes to needed multisectoral skills often being unidentified and opportunities for students to gain experiential learning opportunities through placements being missed. Universities do not have the mandate or resources to provide soft-skill development that meets the multifaceted needs of the entire agriculture sector. In contrast, government and industry employers have weak institutional links with formal education providers, hindering the potential for education-sharing between actors that combine theory-based and practical pedagogies. As such, employers face a graduate pool that requires significant investment and upskilling. This absence of RCS that facilitate social learning to identify multistakeholder priorities, resources and knowledge, limits the effectiveness of Mpumalanga’s AET system. Access to communication platforms is often exclusive to industry stakeholders, which hinders the ability of AET stakeholders to build multisectoral and social-outcome-driven training models. As expressed by interviewees during the research:

[We need] collaboration between the university and the Department [of Agriculture]. We can’t be producing students, and then when they go to the market, they can’t be absorbed (University educator, personal interview, 2023).

We are working in silos. I’m doing my own things. The investors [are] doing their own things, the Department [of Agriculture], their own things. But all of us are focusing on the same people (NGO employee, personal interview, 2023).

This comes while participants placed almost universally high value on experiential learning as a driver of innovative capabilities. While there are mechanisms that support the integration of theoretical and practical learning environments through government internships, on-farm training and private-sector internships and studentships, no system-wide framework supports the identification and facilitation of practical learning placements. The limited number of internships and on-farm training partnerships often occur through informal mechanisms and are under-resourced. High-level attempts to build partnerships to provide integrated learning environments have often faced systemic challenges due to poor connections between the multiple levels of agriculture in Mpumalanga, government departments working in silos, and the lack of a central structure that provides a locus for networking and brokerage, in particular between formal and informal spheres. Interviewees also commented on the lack of practical learning opportunities and practical skills:

Industry [should] support students from the university or college level; however, there is no platform to develop those relationships with everyone working at the university (Smallholder association employee, personal interview, 2023).

We want people from the universities that will fit our profile. Then we usually can’t find them because they don’t need to give that kind of training. I’m generalizing now, but in most cases, universities don’t do that kind of training (Private researcher, personal interview, 2023).

We’ve just heard [from] an extension officer that was poached by an exporting company, and we need to find a replacement. And we did identify some candidates, but [they were] candidates with a lot of university qualification but no experience. They have no experience as to what happens in pack houses, what are the real needs, what are the real challenges. They do not have the experience and the skill sets to be in a guiding position. You need people with experience (Commodity association employee, personal interview, 2023).

The benefits of multidirectional solid communication processes that facilitate stakeholder participation in developing AET are widely recognized. However, there are insufficient institutional norms or regulations providing an enabling framework for the awareness, development and exchange of knowledge. The complex nature of the multilevel AET system presents a challenge to collaboration. This challenge is exacerbated as government and employers are not mandated to seek out educational collaboration.

Commodity associations and public and private extension

Citrus and maize commodity associations coordinate, resource and structure multilevel communication platforms that aid reflection, learning and partnerships in Mpumalanga. Such rural communication processes support innovative capabilities by facilitating multilevel interactions and have been enabled by the funding, regulatory and normative institutions. An example of the impact of such levy regulatory and normative institutions are the service-delivery expectations (Roberts and Chisoro, 2021) of citrus value-chain stakeholders, emanating from having a compulsory levy charged on growers’ exports by the Citrus Growers Association (CGA). The stated purpose of the CGA is the “interests of the producers of export citrus” (DALRRD, 2020b, p. 96). This has led to service delivery built around the needs and priorities commercial and export-driven agriculture. This levy system provides the framework for enabling key networking and backstopping functions. This is done through a multistakeholder levy fee review process that helps facilitate high-quality interactions and maintain existing relationships within commodity value-chains and coordination associations.

However, there is an absence of smallholder-centric RCS, and smallholders are often excluded from such export-specific structures. Indeed, smallholder participation in such structures could prove counterproductive to their food security as reliance on a single cash crop commodity can increase household vulnerability to rapidly changing global markets. While commodity associations enable communication structures, the commodity-specific focus and regulatory pressure to increase export capital flows into South Africa have developed a system through which multifunctional smallholder needs are often ignored. Further, while the national coordination structures of commodity associations allow for strategic foresight activities consistent with central government planning, this top-down focus reinforces economic-centric outcomes over smallholder agriculture’s multifaceted and often localized priorities.

The service-delivery expectations of commodity associations include the provision of commodity-specific extension support. Commodity extension acts as an RCS by facilitating two-way, interactive and participatory communication processes (Acunzo et al., 2014) and helps inform a commodity-association strategy. Commodity extension’s communicative support is aided by grower surveys, forums and mediated interactions between value-chain actors and policymaking bodies. These multilevel needs-gathering processes allow training to respond to industry needs and are a considerable systemic strength within Mpumalanga. Information collected on grower priorities informs extension officers’ training programmes, allowing demand-driven codified and experiential training to be delivered. Further, commodity association extension officers can gain practical experience with farmers and agroprocessors by utilizing the networks that commodity associations coordinate. However, industry-led training providers often cannot fully access sufficient training infrastructures or funding to capitalize on needs-responsive training opportunities. This comment from a commodity association employee illustrates this point:

We use conferencing facilities, which drives up the costs considerably, but there isn’t really training facilities that are accessible and well equipped. If one thinks for instance, about agricultural colleges, if there would be facilities available and agricultural colleges where one can do that kind of training [that would be useful]. They’re very run down, not well equipped and not really accessible (Commodity association employee, personal interview, 2023).

In contrast to the private sector, there is often insufficient training support for public extension officers, and training providers cannot capitalize on agricultural networks to ensure extension officers gain experience from multistakeholder groups. This stems from insufficient RCS, as there are limited communication processes that identify local knowledge, needs, expectations and priorities or opportunities for public extension, universities and smallholder and industry groups to work together. The lack of a communicative framework that facilitates social learning between public services and smallholder stakeholders hinders the extension’s ability to capitalize on opportunities for mutual learning and co-creation of knowledge, as highlighted in this comment:

The CGA extension services don’t integrate a lot with government extension, and [this] limits us all (Commodity extension employee, personal interview, 2023).

Further, weak networking between public extension providers and the wider AET system hinders the collective ability to adapt and support changes to extension recruitment, training and implementation policies. An example is the recently closed Assistant Agricultural Practitioners programme in which the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) appointed 5 000 new assistant extension officers throughout South Africa on 3-month contracts. This was in response to a policy directive to reduce the ratio of extension officers to farmers from 1:850 to 1:250. However, provincial departments were not allocated sufficient infrastructural and knowledge-based resources, including cars, laptops and phones, to support the new assistant agricultural practitioners in fulfilling their roles. Improved collaboration with industry and universities could have helped identify mutually beneficial opportunities for collaboration that would have enabled resource sharing (for example, travelling to the same locations and sharing knowledge about farmer needs).

5. Discussion

Commodity-focused transdisciplinary research

Some institutional regulations and norms help deploy communication-for-development processes for agricultural research in Mpumalanga. Normative shifts towards participatory processes and structured “call for proposals” mechanisms enable system needs to be identified and spaces to create networking and collaboration. The increasingly inter- and transdisciplinary nature of research funding promotes participation and collaborative action in ways that enable mutual learning and knowledge co-creation in both public and private spheres. However, the ongoing emphasis in research on promoting economic productivity in industrial and smallholder agriculture ensures that research structures cannot sufficiently incorporate the diversity of research priorities of non-commodity groups. Inadequate communication processes cannot foster dialogue that identifies multistakeholder needs, expectations and priorities, which stymies the ability of research to tackle systemic challenges by engaging multistakeholder groups to support the scaling of innovation packages.

Well-established citrus and maize commodity-coordination systems combine bottom-up and top-down approaches to inform research agendas. Benefiting from the support of the levy system, detailed in the previous section, research on commodity-focus areas is enhanced through multilevel solid communication processes that enable the co-development of knowledge between growers, agroprocessors and export-oriented bodies. Multilevel needs-gathering functions support networking and backstopping to facilitate research to meet targeted needs, while establishing multistakeholder partnerships and resource-sharing tasks that aid the scaling of innovations. As such, the levy system supports high-quality interactions in which levy payers have relationships with commodity associations, with levy payers benefiting from the systemic coordinating role of commodity associations. A commodity association employee described this as follows:

an agenda that is set by growers [is] obviously reactionary. They are not really proactive in the research that they request. They are at the coalface, so they tend to request research for problems that they’re being faced with. They’re not going to be able to say [there is a] strong possibility that next year we might have this pest because it’s been detected in Mozambique (Commodity association employee, personal interview, 2023)

This research system enables the collection of multilevel needs and supports the functioning of the entire national innovation system by enabling multi-institutional interactions. Well-communicated calls for proposals act as a rural communication process that supports high-quality interactions by mandating multi-institutional research consortia in funding calls. Transdisciplinary research-funding programmes act as systemic enablers that build on the strengths of the commodity-coordination structure by facilitating multistakeholder interaction.

However, the equity of commodity-focused research systems remains an issue due to contrasting access levels between stakeholder groups. While the levy system enables multistakeholder priority setting, the influence of commodity associations focused on increasing production limits the extent to which priorities concerning smallholder agricultural resilience are included. The neoliberal path dependencies, highlighted earlier in this chapter, that enable commodity associations to play strong, and in many cases positive, roles in agricultural research and innovation have also established a system that cannot adequately incorporate the multifunctional needs of smallholder farmers. This is because the mandates and funding models of commodity associations enforce a focus on economic-centric priorities that value production outcomes over local resilience and social and cultural values. A commodity association employee described the commodity-focused research system thus:

You need to have a project that will make a decent discovery and will make a real contribution to the industry … There are cheques and balances in place to make sure that we that we focus on what is really needed (Commodity association employee, personal interview, 2023)

The public research agenda

Public research coordination processes, such as the ARC Inter-Campus Research Forum and the Mpumalanga Agricultural Research Committee, are visible at national and provincial levels. Such mechanisms enable communication and priority setting between high-level personnel in government departments, public universities and research councils. However, a lack of clear ownership and buy-in is apparent, compared to the commodity-association research and development systems. There is weak public networking, facilitation and knowledge exchange through these platforms, with limited institutional commitment on the part of participants. This is a concern as poor-quality, high-level communication structures have amplified downstream effects that hinder brokerage and priority setting between actors at operational levels throughout Mpumalanga. This is reflected in the following comment made by a university policymaker during an interview:

I think [the system needs] an increased role from the ARC [Agricultural Research Council]. There are, on a project basis, really good examples, but from a systems basis, it’s still very uncoordinated (University policymaker, T. Fry, personal interview, 2023)

Research agenda-setting mechanisms in Mpumalanga that incorporate bottom-up and top-down approaches are still in their infancy, and strong leadership is required to ensure that these mechanisms are sufficiently strengthened. This will require the development of more formalized structures that support interactions and the utilization of infrastructures between public research stakeholders. Furthermore, structures must incorporate operational partnership models that ensure that research stakeholders at all levels benefit from strengthened communication processes. This is because partnerships have been seen to benefit senior actors rather than building a multilevel system that brings in other perspectives from finance, transport and societal stakeholders, among others. Several interviewees expressed their concerns in this regard:

If there’s an MoU, it should actually stipulate what is it that’s supposed to be done, and it must be communicated between the people in [the] Agricultural Research Council [and] senior people in the Department of Agriculture, so that even tomorrow when they say there’s a provincial forum we can all attend (University researcher, T. Fry, personal interview, 2023)

We are also busy with our own research, and I’m sure the Department of Agriculture are also busy ... In terms of improving the interactions, if there could be a sort of forum that has both staff from here in Extension and also colleagues from the Department [of Agriculture] that would help, because we don’t know what their challenges are, and actually it would actually help us to come up with research areas for our own students (University educator, personal interview, 2023)

We’ve not had really much engagement with the academic sector for the last four to five years (Development finance employee, personal interview, 2023)

6. Conclusion

The absence of rural communication processes hinders the equity of Mpumalanga’s AET system by creating reliance on private and production-orientated commodity associations. Neoliberal economic-output-focused policymaking has diminished state capacity to support smallholder agriculture in ways that build systemic resilience to shocks. This can be observed through strong communicative structures for export-orientated industrial agriculture and limited smallholder access to AET. This absence of rural communication structures identifying where complementary resource sharing could provide mutual benefits across Mpumalanga’s AIS exacerbates historic and ongoing structural inequities (Qobo and Sihlobo, 2021). The ongoing lack of access to resources, including training facilities, land and financing, hinders innovative capabilities across Mpumalanga and affects stakeholders facing higher resourcing constraints, including smallholder farmers and NGOs (Francis and Webster, 2019). Furthermore, the lack of communication processes between stakeholder groups to identify common economic, social and political challenges reduces the equity of Mpumalanga’s AET system through a lack of support for structurally disadvantaged groups to collectively influence systemic outcomes (Avelino and Rotmans, 2009). In addition, top-down policymaking cannot build ownership at multiple levels as research coordination, communication channels and priority-setting processes are only in operation at senior levels. This poses challenges to effective policy implementation, and the absence of comparative communication processes at multiple levels within Mpumalanga hinders the functioning of the entire system.

Despite increasing pressure on food systems and the food-production adaptations and systems approaches arising from this pressure (slow food, food sovereignty, AIS, mission-led policymaking, etc.), “understandings of new ways of organising within and between food systems lacks appropriate theoretical frameworks to account for a shift away from predominantly hierarchical structures” (Pavlovich et al., 2021, p. 146). By incorporating AIS diagnostics in RCS, this chapter has sought to help build a collective understanding of what processes are absent in Mpumalanga’s AET system and how developing and facilitating communication-for-development processes can support systemic resilience. Examining the systemic blockages apparent through inequitable access to RCS provides evidence that argues for improved support for multidirectional communication processes to be institutionalized by all actors in Mpumalanga. Public bodies should utilize communication-for-development processes to help bridge the gap between scientific and local knowledge, strengthen dialogues between research institutions and government, and identify where there are opportunities for actors to share resources around common AET goals. This would help increase resource-use efficiency in AET and enable all actors to benefit from systemic (rather than siloed) network, infrastructural and knowledge resources.

References

Acunzo, M., Pafumi, M., Torres, C. & Tirol, M.S. 2014. Communication for Rural Development Sourcebook. Rome, FAO.

Aerni, P., Nichterlein, K., Rudgard, S. & Sonnino, A. 2015. Making Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) Work for Development in Tropical Countries. Sustainability, 7: 831–850. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70x000x

Ainslie, A. 2003. Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa: Land use and livelihoods. Cape Town, South Africa, University of the Western Cape. https://repository.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10566/4416/elarsa_op_8_land_use_and_livelihoods.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Amekawa, Y., Sseguya, H., Onzere, S. & Carranza, I. 2010. Delineating the Multifunctional Role of Agroecological Practices: Toward Sustainable Livelihoods for Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries. J. Sustain. Agric., 34: 202–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440040903433079

Archer, A.A., Higgins, A. & Thorburn, P. 2009. A method for comprehending and adapting complex supply chains in agriculture. J. Chain Netw. Sci. ,9: 9–15. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2009.x136

Avelino, F. & Rotmans, J. 2009. Power in Transition: An Interdisciplinary Framework to Study Power in Relation to Structural Change. Eur. J. Soc. Theory, 12: 543–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431009349830

Baiphethi, M.N. & Jacobs, P.T. 2009. The contribution of subsistence farming to food security in South Africa. Agrekon, 48: 459–482. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC18425

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. & Rickne, A. 2008. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Res. Policy, 37: 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003

Bidegain Ponte, N. & Enríquez, C.R. 2016. Agenda 2030: A bold enough framework towards sustainable, gender-just development? Gend. Dev., 24: 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1142227

Bond, P. & Malikane, C. 2019. Inequality caused by macro-economic policies during overaccumulation crisis. Dev. South. Afr., 36: 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2019.1701416

Borrás, S. & Edquist, C. 2013. The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 80: 1513–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.002

Bruges, M. & Smith, W. 2009. Improving utilisation of Māori land: Challenges and successes in the application of a participatory approach. Kōtuitui N. Z. J. Soc. Sci. Online, 4: 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2009.9522455

DALRRD (Department Of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development). 2020a. Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development Strategic Plan 2020-2025. Pretoria.

DALRRD. 2020b. A Profile of the South African Citrus Market Chain. Pretoria.

DARDLEA (Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs). 2021. Annual Performance Plan 2021/22. Mbombela, South Africa.

DEDET (Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism). 2022. Mpumalanga in Brief. Mpumalanga.

Dondofema, R. & Grobbelaar, S. 2019. Supporting innovation through a multi-level platforms approach: A case study of the South African fresh fruit industry. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev., 12(4): 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2019.1681102

Edquist, C. 2010. Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev., 2: 14–45. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC10560

Eicher, C.K. 2006. The Evolution of Agricultural Education and Training: Global Insights of Relevance for Africa. Staff Paper Series 11816, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

Elhassnaoui, I., Shehata Wahba, M.A., Wolde, S.G., Mohamed, B.D. & Moumen, A. 2023. The past, current, and future of the Africa Green Revolution: The case study of Kenya, Morocco, and Nigeria. World Water Policy, 9: 869–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/wwp2.12135

Ellis, F. 1999. Rural Livelihood Diversity in Developing Countries: Evidence and Policy Implications. ODI Nat. Resour. Perspect., 40.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2022. Assessing agricultural innovation systems for action at country level – a preliminary framework. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0614en

FAO. 2017. The future of food and agriculture: Drivers and triggers for transformation, 1st ed. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1024en

Faure, G., Knierim, A., Koutsouris, A., Ndah, H.T., Audouin, S., Zarokosta, E., Wielinga, E. et al. 2019. How to Strengthen Innovation Support Services in Agriculture with Regard to Multi-Stakeholder Approaches. J. Innov. Econ. Manag., 28: 145–169. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.028.0145

Fischer, K. 2022. Why Africa’s New Green Revolution is failing – Maize as a commodity and anti-commodity in South Africa. Geoforum, 130: 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.08.001

Francis, D. & Webster, E. 2019. Poverty and inequality in South Africa: critical reflections. Dev. South. Afr., 36: 788–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2019.1666703

Geels, F. 2006. Multi-Level Perspective on System Innovation: Relevance for Industrial Transformation. In: Olsthoorn, X. & Wieczorek, A., eds. Understanding Industrial Transformation. Environment & Policy, vol 44. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4418-6_9

Giller, K., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, J., Andriesse, W., Brouwer, A., Frost, P., Hebinck, P. et al. 2008. Competing Claims on Natural Resources: What Role for Science? Ecol. Soc., 13: 34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02595-130234

Hajdu, F., Fischer, K., Salomonsson, L. & Friman, E. 2012. “But tractors can’t fly”: A transdisciplinary analysis of neoliberal agricultural development interventions in South Africa. Int. J. Transdiscipl. Res., 6: 24–51.

Hall, A. 2005. Capacity Development for Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: An Innovation Systems View of What It Is and How to Develop It. J. Int. Dev., 17: 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1227

Hall, A., Janssen, W., Pehu, E. & Rajalahti, R. 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. Agriculture and rural development. Washington, DC, World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/864351468325269468/Enhancing-agricultural-innovation-how-to-go-beyond-the-strengthening-of-research-systems

Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R., Negro, S.O., Smits, R.E.H.M. & Kuhlmann, S. 2007. Functions of Innovation Systems: A New Approach for Analysing Technological Change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 74: 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002

Hermans, F., Stuiver, M., Beers, P.J. & Kok, K. 2013. The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst., 115: 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.09.006

Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Bodirsky, B.L., Pradhan, P., Barrett, C.B. et al. 2021. Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet Planet. Health, 5: e50–e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1

Hounkonnou, D., Kossou, D., Kuyper, T.W., Leeuwis, C., Nederlof, E.S., Röling, N., Sakyi-Dawson, O. et al. 2012. An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development in West Africa. Agric. Syst., 108: 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.01.007

Klerkx, L., Hall, A. & Leeuwis, C. 2009. Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation Brokers the Answer? Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol., 8(5/6). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2009.032643

Kok, K.P.W. & Klerkx, L. 2023. Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst., 211: 103747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103747

Lamontagne-Godwin, J., Dorward, P., Aslam, N. & Cardey, S. 2019. Analysing support towards inclusive and integrated rural advisory systems. Soc. Sci., 8(10): 295.

Lamprinopoulou, C., Renwick, A., Klerkx, L., Hermans, F. & Roep, D. 2014. Application of an integrated systemic framework for analysing agricultural innovation systems and informing innovation policies: Comparing the Dutch and Scottish agrifood sectors. Agric. Syst., 129: 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.001

Leeuwis, C. 2004. Changing views of innovation and the role of science. The “socio-technical root system” as a tool for identifying relevant cross-disciplinary research questions. In: C. Cristóvão, ed. Proceedings of the Sixth IFSA European Symposium, Vila Real, Portugal, 3-8 April 2004. Presented at the Sixth IFSA European Symposium. Vila Real, Portugal, UTAD.

Leeuwis, C. & van den Ban, A.W. 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Oxford, UK, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Lotter, M.C. 2010. GIS Metadata. Nelspruit, Mpumalanga Tourism & Parks Agency: Scientific Services.

Mali, K. & Sheefeni, J.P.S. 2023. Austerity Measures, Infrastructure and Economic Development in South Africa (1996–2019). Organ. Mark. Emerg. Econ., 14: 56–82. https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2023.14.82

Mathe, S., Faure, G., Knierim, A., Koutsouris, A., Ndah, H.T., Temple, L., Triomphe, B. et al. 2016. Typology of innovation support services, Deliverable 1.4. Paris, CIRAD, AgriSpin.

Minh, T.T. 2019. Unpacking the systemic problems and blocking mechanisms of a regional agricultural innovation system: An integrated regional-functional-structural analysis. Agric. Syst., 173: 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.009

Mkuhlani, S., Crespo, O., Rusere, F., Zhou, L. & Francis, J. 2020. Classification of small-scale farmers for improved rainfall variability management in South Africa. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst., 44: 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1537325

Modjadji, P. & Madiba, S. 2019. The double burden of malnutrition in a rural health and demographic surveillance system site in South Africa: a study of primary schoolchildren and their mothers. BMC Public Health, 19: 1087. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7412-y

Moodley, G. 2005. Critical analysis of the post-apartheid South African Government’s discourse on infromation and communication technologies (ICTs), poverty and development. Stellenbosch, University of Stellenbosch.

Moseley, W., Schnurr, M. & Bezner Kerr, R. 2015. Interrogating the technocratic (neoliberal) agenda for agricultural development and hunger alleviation in Africa. Afr. Geogr. Rev., 34: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2014.1003308

Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H. & Kerr, R. 2014. A political ecology of high-input agriculture in northern Ghana. Afr. Geogr. Rev., 34: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2014.929971

Pamuk, H., Bulte, E. & Adewale, A. 2013. Do decentralized innovation systems promote agricultural technology adoption? Experimental evidence from Africa. Food Policy, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.015

Pavlovich, K., Henderson, A. & Barling, D. 2021. Organizing for thoughtful food: a meshwork approach. Agric. Hum. Values, 38: 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10139-0

Qobo, M. & Sihlobo, W. 2021. Addressing Constraints to South Africa’s Agriculture Inclusiveness. SCIS Working Paper Number 26. Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand.

Roberts, S. & Chisoro, S. 2021. Innovation and inclusion in South Africa’s citrus industry. Working paper v1, October 2021. Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh.

Robins, S.L. 2005. Limits to Liberation After Apartheid: Citizenship, Governance & Culture. Oxford, James Currey Publishers.

Sambo, J., Tada, O., Chitura, T. & Mararakanye, N. 2023. Evaluation of Nguni cattle performance from communal property associations and private ownership types across three ecological zones of Mpumalanga province, South Africa. Asian J. Agric. Rural Dev., 13. https://doi.org/10.55493/5005.v13i1.4760

Schulze, R.E. 2010. Atlas of climate change and the South African agricultural sector: A 2010 perspective. Pretoria, Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.

Schut, M., Klerkx, L. & Leeuwis, C. 2015. Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (RAAIS). A toolkit for integrated analysis of complex agricultural problems and innovation capacity in agrifood systems. Agric. Syst., 132: 1–11.

Schut, M., Leeuwis, C., Waters-Bayer, A., Sartas, M., Atta-Krah, K. & Douthwaite, B. 2014. Capacity to innovate from a system CGIAR research program perspective. Program Brief: AAS-2014-29. Penang, Malaysia, CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3802.8808

Koelble, T.A.K. & Siddle, A. 2018. Decentralization in Post-Apartheid South Africa, in: Federalism and Decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Oxfordshire, UK, Routledge.

Sihlobo, W. 2023. A Country of Two Agricultures. Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Smits, R. 2002. Innovation studies in the 21st century: Questions from a user’s perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, IPTS S.I. 69: 861–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00181-0

Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J. & Davis, K. 2009. The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technol. Soc., 31: 399–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.10.004

Storey, W. 2018. Technological Change in Late 19th-Century South Africa. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. [Cited 15 March 2024]. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.013.85

Stringer, L.C., Fraser, E.D.G., Harris, D., Lyon, C., Pereira, L., Ward, C.F.M. & Simelton, E. 2020. Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers. Environ. Sci. Policy, 104: 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.007

Sumberg, J. & Reece, D. 2004. Agricultural Research Through a “New Product Development” Lens. Exp. Agric., 40: 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479704002030

Swanepoel, F., Ofir, Z. & Stroebel, A. 2014. Towards impact and resilience: transformative change in and through agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Newcastle Upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Toillier, A., Faure, G., Audouin, S., Mathé, S., Triomphe, B. & Temple, L. 2021. Literature review of methodologies for the diagnosis of Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS). Paris, CIRAD.

Torres, C., Dagli, W., Maria Stella, T., Odame, H., Perez, M., van de Fliert, E., Sam, S. et al. 2017. Inclusive Rural Communication Services: Building Evidence, Informing Policy. Rome, FAO and Brisbane, University of Queensland.

Turner, J., Rijswijk, K., Williams, T., Barnard, T. & Klerkx, L. 2014. Challenges to effective interaction in the New Zealand agricultural research and extension system: an innovation systems analysis. Extension farming systems journal, 9: 89–98. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:112394604}

World Bank. 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation. Washington, DC.

Zwane, E. & Davis, K. 2017. Extension and advisory services: the African renaissance. South Afr. J. Agric. Ext., 45. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2017/v45n1a437

Chapter 5

Supporting innovation uptake in agriculture: group model building as a rural communication process

Authors:

Ibnu Budiman

The New Normal Institute, Indonesia
Bogor Agriculture University, Indonesia
Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Afifah Azzahra

University of Indonesia, Indonesia

Shakila Sania Parsa

University of Indonesia, Indonesia

1. Introduction

The livestock sector is vital for the rural economy of Indonesia. The sector’s contribution to the gross domestic product has increased steadily since 2014, totalling over IDR 298 trillion (USD 19.2 million) in 2022, more than 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product (Budiman and Alta, 2022). Dairy farming is an important livestock subsector in Indonesia and is a vital source of income for many smallholder households.

Small-scale dairy production began to develop in Indonesia especially after the 1960s, when the Indonesian government established a programme to improve rural welfare through dairy farming. Despite the slow growth of the sector, due to unfavourable climate conditions, management problems and marketing constraints, dairy production is a significant economic activity in the country (IndoDairy, 2020).

In many parts of the world, increasing productivity and quality among smallholder milk producers is a critical development issue that requires the introduction and adoption of dairy-production technologies and improved management practices. Agricultural extension and technology dissemination programs have been implemented to facilitate and enhance the adoption of technology by smallholder farmers (Maertens et al., 2021). However, the dissemination approach in most countries has tended to follow a one-size-fit-sall model, neglecting the unique characteristics of different groups of farmers (including sociodemographic characteristics, assets, constraints and adoption status). This has resulted in low levels of adoption of the technologies by smallholders (Akzar et al., 2023). In Indonesia, human, social and financial capital; innovation characteristics and environmental pressures have all influenced farmers’ decisions regarding technology adoption (Budiman et al., 2024)

This study investigated how group model building (GMB) workshops, as a rural communication strategy, help support innovation adoption in the dairy farming sector in Indonesia. As described by Vennix (1996, cited in Siokou et al., 2014) GMB is:

a process in which team members exchange their perceptions of a problem and explore questions such as: What exactly is the problem we face? How did the problematic situation originate? What might be its underlying causes? How can the problem be tackled? (p. 3)

GMB involves co-creating system dynamics with stakeholders whose collective knowledge and expertise provide insights into the structure and parameters associated with system phenomena (Rich et al., 2022). GMB is one of several ways of engaging stakeholders in developing system dynamics models – including causal loop diagrams (CLDs) – which make it possible to communicate and discuss systemic problems and solutions for improving innovation systems in agriculture.

2. Methods

Ten GMB workshops were conducted in West Java with 66 participants (see Figure 1). Eight of the workshops were conducted with farmers (53 farmers), and two were conducted with other rural stakeholders from dairy companies, cooperatives, agencies, extension services and technology providers (13 participants). The workshops with the farmers centred on one of the following dairy production technologies: teat dipping to prevent mastitis, record-keeping and digitalization.[1] These technologies were selected as they support the transition to smart agriculture. The farmers were grouped by education level (attended or completed primary school, completed high school and completed university-level education) to ease the communication process in the workshops. Some farmers participated in more than one workshop. An overview of the workshops is provided in Appendix 1.

Figure 1. Group model building workshop with farmers with higher levels of education

© Ade Isak Juarsa

The workshops were held at the offices of dairy cooperatives. Workshops 1 through 5 focused on socio-institutional factors influencing the adoption of teat dipping and record-keeping, while workshops 6 through 10 focused on the impact of digitalization on social systems. The responses from farmers in each workshop, including variables, causalities and polarities among factors were documented in a CLD. The CLDs from the workshops with farmers covering the same topic were then combined. The results were then further discussed with multiple rural and agricultural stakeholders. This resulted in the final CLDs (provided in Appendix 2).

To support the analysis of the GMB workshops and how they facilitate communication to improve innovation systems in dairy farming, the research team then conducted a systematic literature review. First, three key concepts were selected: livestock farming, innovation adoption and group model building. Synonyms or related topics for each concept were found in Google Scholar in order to identify search terms and build a systematic query. The search terms were then refined by conducting preliminary searches. The selected search terms are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Search terms used in the systematic literature review

Livestock farming

Innovation adoption

Group model building

Livestock farming

Dairy farming

Livestock agriculture

Livestock production

Animal production

Dairy production

Family farming

Innovation adoption

Technology adoption

Technology uptake

Technology transfer

Technology diffusion

Technology dissemination

Adoption barriers

Adoption factors

Uptake barriers

Uptake factors

Group model building

System dynamics

Causal loop diagrams

Rural communication

Mental map

Knowledge generation

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

The search was conducted using Google Scholar, and 112 results were obtained. Search results were screened by title or abstract, and 32 texts were selected to be reviewed based on their relevance to reflecting on GMB experiences. Selected texts were then grouped according to the classifications (1) agricultural innovation systems and (2) barriers, intervention and impact, and semantic maps were created by examining and combining ideas from the selected texts.

3. Results

The GMB workshops resulted in three CLDs related to: (1) factors influencing the adoption of teat dipping, (2) factors influencing the adoption of record-keeping and (3) factors influencing the adoption of digitalization in dairy production (see Appendix 2).

GMB was found to be a discursive process in which rural stakeholders explore their blind spots and normative assumptions about technologies and innovation. It offered opportunities for transdisciplinary dialogue and an extended peer discourse on the complexities of the agricultural innovation system. Each linkage identified in the CLDs is the result of a conversation. The entire GMB process was a learning path for the group. By the end of the workshops, the groups had experienced an extensive and systematic exploration of the integrated dimensions of the technology adoption process and its problems.

GMB is learning by communicating (Tian et al., 2021) and is an integrated assessment process for agricultural innovation. The following sections narrate the reflections and lessons learned and report how the GMB workshops contribute to rural communication processes towards an improved agricultural innovation system.

Impact at different levels

The impact of GMB can be measured at three levels: individual, group and organizational (Kondratenko, 2003). At the individual level, the GBM process develops systems-thinking skills, improves mental models and changes attitudes towards technology. At the group level, the outcomes include alignment of mental models, creating agreement and generating commitment to a decision. At the organizational level, the outcomes include process and performance changes. Table 2 lists the impacts the GMB workshops had on the farmers (those with higher education levels and those with lower education levels) and on other stakeholders at the three different levels.

Table 2. Impact of the group model-building workshops at individual, group and organizational levels

Farmers with lower levels of education

Farmers with higher levels of education

Other rural stakeholders

Status before GMB workshops

No information about the correct use of teat dipping and the benefit of record-keeping

Lack of information about other sources to access teat-dipping tools

Different parties have different opinions about better mastitis management

Impact at the individual level

Mental models of farmers change, assumptions are challenged (including the limiting factors), the range of possible futures is (re)considered, confidence in technology is increased

The thinking of workshop participants is challenged, and new information is acquired

New insights are provided by other stakeholders, individual thinking is influenced

Impact at the group level

A common understanding is created among farmers, previous differences in technological assumptions are resolved

Some contributions to creating a more optimistic atmosphere on improving technology uptake are established

Some new arrangements are planned, e.g. cooperation between the cooperative and the technology provider

Impact at the organizational level

Decisions are made to start technology adoption

Internal communication within and among farmer groups is triggered

Changes are proposed to technology diffusion strategies

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Agricultural innovation involves many parties, and the opinions of different stakeholders must be shared in order to create a balanced view of the situation and take all relevant factors into account. Applying systems thinking and using CLDs is most beneficial in group settings, such as GMB workshops. First, group settings are better for exploring problems, as they provide the opportunity for different opinions to be taken into account in the discussion. Second, discussion within groups makes it possible to create a shared vision of the problem, which resolves differences between the parties involved. Third, such group activities generate commitment to a derived solution and create ownership of the solution. This aligns with Hovmand’s (2014) vision for the group model-building process, which emphasizes the importance of community involvement both to understand the underlying system and to aid in the implementation of the solution.

In GMB workshops, participants express their opinions and ideas and articulate their mental models, providing additional fuel for discussion. As a result of the discussion and the articulated mental models, a coherent mental model is formed that addresses the issue and is used to solve the problem through internalization and application of knowledge. Interestingly, during one group discussion in this study, the group found out that they had been concentrating on the wrong issue and reformulated the problem. This was discovered by the group itself, with support from the facilitator (a facilitation expert), who helped the group discuss the issues effectively – deepening the discussion and supporting the communication process (Kondratenko, 2003). Figure 2 maps this as a learning process.

Figure 2. Group model building as a learning process

Source: Adapted from: Kondratenko, Y. 2003. How Can Systems Thinking Be Used to Support Rural Development Decisions in Latvia. Lund, Sweden, Lund University. Master thesis.

Social learning and commitment

Applying GMB in the agriculture sector involves a shift from teaching farmers to working with farmers. The structure of education and extension services is a focus of attention: extension is no longer seen as a delivery mechanism of the results of scientific research. Extension is increasingly understood as a social mechanism for facilitating social learning of appropriate responses to changing circumstances (Klerkx et al., 2012). The stakeholders highlighted that innovation is not just about developing technology but about taking into account the whole agricultural innovation system; that is, culture, power, institutions and policies, as well as the actors themselves – considered as change agents.

Farmers and other stakeholders become social learners instead of users or adopters of scientific recommendations. Farmers learn to adopt innovation in their own location and in response to time-bound situations. For example, the farmers participating in the GBM workshops in this study had adopted teat dipping and mastitis prevention because they wanted to participate in a cow contest. This demonstrates the relevance of social context to learning. Social learning does not stop at the farm boundaries. The GBM workshop participants agreed that local communities and a broader range of stakeholders and resource users must also learn how to trigger innovations. Through the GBM process, the participants developed a shared understanding that allowed them to make concerted choices regarding the trade-offs among competing interests. Cooperatives are thus called upon to engage with various actors continuously to develop ways to improve through incremental changes to existing technology transfer, accompanied by constant critical reflection and learning. Notably, the changes are not only technical but social and economic. In this way, GMB becomes an iterative reflective process, which implies learning more with each cycle (Darnhofer et al., 2012).

Time and frequency of contact are also important in social learning. Successful examples of agricultural technology adoption involve long-term commitments from the key stakeholders (funders, smallholders and collaborating agencies) (Budiman et al., 2024). Such commitment enables the development of effective relationships, time for smallholders to experience the application of the technologies across a range of contrasting season types, capacity building of in-country agency staff and smallholders, and adequate and regular technical support when required. On the other hand, Lisson et al. (2010) found that households exposed to aid projects that (from their perspective) promise something of immediate value experienced that, most often, these provided scant lasting or tangible benefits. The GMB approach, however, has resulted in (1) sustained adoption of a package of best-bet technologies by smallholder households with an unambiguous intention to continue these practices into the future; (2) positive production, social and economic impacts; and (3) significant adoption and adaption of the livestock-improvement technologies by other households exposed to the practices. The GMB workshops showed that working closely with local institutions is essential to raising awareness of the approach and incorporating the associated principles and techniques into standard operating procedures. This is supported by a significant investment in local capacity building for smallholders and supporting agencies. Stakeholders should shift the focus from preoccupation with introduced technologies towards users’ dispositions, perceptions and preferences.

GMB is a good tool for building consensus and commitment to a chosen strategy since all stakeholders are involved in constructing the strategy, testing the suggested interventions and policies and making choices. GMB workshops are interactive and iterative. Furthermore, they help achieve stakeholder buy-in and commitment to selected policies and interventions and ensure the sustainability of innovations. GMB is also beneficial in scarce-data environments (Lie et al., 2017). GMB identifies solution options for collective action to increase the likelihood of adoption of the technology and its effectiveness.

Barriers to technology transfer

The GMB workshops conducted in this study helped to reveal the social construction of barriers to technology transfer to farmers, which occurs through several mechanisms. GMB highlights the structural aspects of technology transfer, including the organizational structure, communication channels and the distribution of power and resources. These structural elements create barriers to technology adoption, as they do not always align with all stakeholders’ capacities in the technology-transfer process. Three main barriers to technology transfer were identified in the GMB workshops: cultural barriers, language and knowledge barriers, and barriers concerning procurement.

Cultural barriers are related to a society’s (farmers’) public values, which provide normative consensus about (1) the rights, benefits and prerogatives to which farmers should (and should not) be entitled; (2) the obligations of farmers to society, to the state and to one another, and; (3) the principles on the basis of which governments and policies should serve them. Farmers’ values may be the most fundamental criterion upon which to evaluate technology acceptance. Despite this, the practical use of culture for designing technology transfer is relatively limited (Bozeman et al., 2015; Shore and Cross, 2005).

Language and knowledge barriers are related to dissemination programs. Farmers who did not adopt new technologies were mostly older, had less formal education, had less literacy capability, managed fewer dairy cows, had less productive and less profitable dairy enterprises, lived further away from their cooperative and farmer group leader, had other activities or jobs, and had fewer contacts with dairy extension staff. These farmers face multilayered and heterogeneous constraints when adopting dairy technologies (Akzar et al., 2016).

Barriers concerning procurement are related to the availability of technology and facilitation. Most farmers decided to adopt the technology if it was granted by external parties or if the price of the technology was affordable and available in their cooperatives. Regarding teat dipping, several farmers argue that the price is expensive and the equipment is sometimes unavailable in their cooperative.

Unintended impact of innovation

The GMB workshops revealed digitalization’s positive and negative implications for rural stakeholder groups. Farmers’ adoption of digital tools was related to motivational access (education and digital literacy) and to physical access to smartphones. In terms of motivational access, there seems to be a significant gap between younger and older farmers in their motivation to adopt digital tools. The GMB workshops confirmed that many younger, educated farmers use digital tools more than older, less-educated farmers, and consider digitalization necessary. Many older farmers with low levels of education were not convinced of this necessity. As for the internet, it facilitates inner-village communication and community participation, bringing about positive outcomes for local farmers. However, dairy cooperatives argue that the farmers’ use of the internet to search for answers to their farming questions has replaced in-person discussions about good farming practices between farmers and their networks. This can be considered an internet paradox at the community level (Tanaka et al., 2023).

The digital divide also concerns differences in internet access between high-resource and low-resource farmers and the dichotomy between farmers who use the internet and farmers who do not. The digital divide is influenced by factors such as age, gender, experience, income, level of education and residential location (Basu and Chakraborty, 2011; Lioutas et al., 2021). The existence of digitalization improves the welfare of high- and medium-resource farmers more than that of low-resource farmers (Budiman, 2024). The use of digital tools motivated the former to improve their farm management, but this impact did not occur significantly among low-resource farmers. Through the GMB process carried out in this study, the rural stakeholders realized this negative impact of digitalization, which led them to discuss potential solutions.

4. Discussion

Knowledge sharing

The GMB workshops also increased farmers’ confidence and capacity to make use of informal knowledge networking with other farmers and stakeholders, which is especially valuable in times of change. Informal learning networks facilitate innovation processes as farmers more readily adopt practices that their peers utilize. Importantly, knowledge obtained from family or neighbouring farmers is often the initial motivator and guide into agriculture for young and new farmers. Experience, knowledge and skills acquired on-farm in early years are crucial for them when choosing to go into farming later in life.

Even among experienced farmers, informal farmers’ knowledge continues to serve as a valuable support and source of inspiration and innovation. For instance, revisiting traditional knowledge can inform innovations in a changing context. Informal knowledge sources diversify farmers’ knowledge and, as such, strengthen their resilience. Additionally, informal knowledge compensates for knowledge gaps in formal knowledge systems, particularly concerning novel, niche and alternative farming practices as well as non-technical knowledge and skills (such as management, networking or the environment) to which formal knowledge institutions pay less attention. This is even more critical in regions or countries with weak, formal, public agricultural knowledge systems. Poor or diminishing public spending on agricultural research and official advisory services and the commercialization of advisory services in Indonesia are reducing many farmers’ access to knowledge, and the fragmentation and narrow, sectoral focus of much research and advice can limit the relevance of the knowledge offered (Budiman and Alta, 2022).

In-person knowledge sharing in the GMB workshops helps develop sustainable practices and strengthens the social structures through which these practices are disseminated: ties of friendship or solidarity, community and identity building. This is even more pertinent when joint learning creates collective benefits, such as improving the local environment, eradicating a pest, or boosting the local economy. Informal knowledge networking can lead to community mobilization and empowerment (Šūmane et al., 2018). The implementation of the GBM process, which is considered a process of farmer empowerment , is expected to encourage the farmers and stakeholders to explore and increase innovation adoption. True empowerment develops increased capacity (Prasetyo and Firdauzi, 2023).

The level of knowledge sharing in GMB workshops depends on the degree of participation (Neef and Neubert, 2011) and on the open-ended nature of the discussion (Darnhofer et al., 2012). Participation creates the process of knowledge production, as stakeholders heavily influence the discussion and the inquiry process (Cerf et al., 2011). Ideally, a participatory process such as GMB produces knowledge that the stakeholders can use and that researchers can position in the academic sphere. Notably, GMB sometimes shows that research practice does not match the rhetoric, and that there is a disconnect between academic theory and research practice.

Participant collaboration and facilitation

GMB workshops are a tool for optimizing participatory approaches in agricultural research and rural communication. All participants in the study workshops agreed on the effectiveness of system-dynamics modelling (using causal loop diagrams) in analysing innovation adoption and in finding the best solutions, not only for technology transfer but also for rural development programmes. In addition, all saw the value of CLD development for more coherent strategy development. System dynamics are important in improving the understanding of a problem, aligning perceptions, building strategy to improve the performance of an innovation system, and developing a more comprehensive model due to the involvement of a multidisciplinary, experienced group of researchers, planners and policymakers during its development. After participating in the GMB workshops, stakeholders commented that, working together to build the model helped them to see the complexity of farmers’ problems and how to deal with them.

The model helps to make sense of some assumptions, allows the participants to test hypotheses, and supports learning about the system. The results of the process can also be used in later stages to inform an economic assessment or a multicriteria analysis, thus supporting an evidence-based decision-making process (Herrera and Kopainsky, 2020).

The groups participating in each workshop included stakeholders and/or experts on the system or part of the system being discussed. As gatekeepers, the researcher and the cooperative played an active role in selecting the participants to ensure that the number and diversity of participants positively affected the usefulness of the process. For instance, communication among group participants increased as group size decreased. Furthermore, in groups that included stakeholders with conflicting interests, the intricacy of the system was more apparent. This diversity of participants also presents challenges to the GMB process. It is not always easy to handle dominant personalities, strong opinions and conflicting points of view among different participants. In this regard, the facilitator plays a vital role in ensuring that all steps in the process occur correctly, according to the objectives initially agreed upon.

Impact of GMB workshops

GMB helps to understand systems and guides actions at individual and collective levels (Bérard, 2010). At the individual level, the GMB workshops improved participants’ mental models. At the collective level, they led to the alignment of mental models, the achievement of consensus on decisions, and the group’s involvement in making these decisions.

Implementation of derived solutions requires the commitment of the groups, the managers and the decision-makers in the field. This entails a group learning process that begins with identifying and agreeing on the problem and continues through model conceptualization, model building, validation and analysis. To facilitate group learning, legitimacy of findings and the implementation of valuable results, concepts and scripts for participatory model building and analysis processes were used. While many GMB activities are performed within corporate and business contexts, our study succeeded in applying this method in the rural domain, particularly concerning agricultural innovation.

With social learning recognized as a critical factor in the transition towards sustainable agriculture, simulation models are increasingly developed and used within participatory and transdisciplinary processes, involving actors such as farmers and policymakers (Herrmann et al., 2011). Participatory modelling fosters social learning and sustainability transition processes (Feola et al., 2012). Our workshops showed that the GMB model offers a learning tool and platform through which stakeholders can more easily interact, explore, communicate and visualize alternative futures to reduce digitalization’s negative impacts (digital divide) in agriculture.

GMB reveals an integrative, transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral perspective of the system in question, arising from the discussion among the participants, including specialists in relevant disciplines. The involvement of farmers and other stakeholders contributed to identifying appropriate extension mechanisms and methods to share innovative approaches with a larger number of farmers. The GMB workshops also showed that extension services must involve location-specific, informed practice; consensual decision-making; and adaptive management approaches. This supports collective farmer learning about technological and other innovations and flexible options that can be adapted; capacity-building for opportunity identification, problem-solving, and decision-making; platform building for resource-use negotiation; and collective decision-making at the larger ecosystem level.

5. Conclusion

This study investigated how GMB workshops, as a rural communication strategy, help to support innovation adoption in dairy farming in Indonesia. GMB is a process whereby the participants co-create system dynamics, leveraging their collective knowledge and expertise, which provide insights into the structure and parameters associated with the agricultural innovation system. GMB workshops support discussion and communication among rural stakeholders around four aspects: (1) revealing mental maps about agricultural innovation problems, (2) revealing barriers in innovation adoption, (3) revealing technology transfer strategies, and (4) revealing the impacts of innovation. Through the GMB workshops, the rural stakeholders generated and exchanged knowledge and shared research ownership.

GMB workshops can play a significant role as a rural communication strategy related to agricultural innovation in six ways. The first way is by facilitating dialogue. GMB brings together stakeholders from various backgrounds – farmers, extension workers, policymakers and researchers – to engage in facilitated dialogue. In rural settings with limited channels for communication, GMB provides a platform for these stakeholders to share their knowledge, experiences, concerns and ideas regarding agricultural innovation. The second way GMB facilitates agricultural innovation is by building shared understanding. GMB helps participants understand the challenges and opportunities associated with adopting agricultural innovations in rural areas. By building CLDs, participants visualize the complex relationships between different factors influencing innovation. The third way is by identifying barriers and solutions. By collectively analysing the system dynamics, participants identify barriers that hinder the adoption of agricultural innovations in rural communities. These barriers include limited access to information, lack of resources, cultural beliefs and institutional constraints. Through collaborative problem-solving exercises, participants can brainstorm potential solutions and strategies to overcome these barriers. The fourth way GBM facilitates agricultural innovation is by enhancing decision-making. GMB provides a structured approach to decision-making that allows participants to explore the potential consequences of different intervention strategies before implementing them. By simulating the effects of various policy options or interventions using stock and flow diagrams, participants can make informed decisions about which actions are most likely to facilitate the adoption of agricultural innovations. The fifth way is by promoting ownership and empowerment. Through their active involvement in the GMB processes, rural stakeholders develop a sense of ownership over emerging solutions. This ownership increases their willingness to implement and champion these solutions within their communities, leading to greater uptake of agricultural innovations. Finally, the sixth way is by facilitating networking and collaboration. GMB workshops provide opportunities for stakeholders to network, collaborate and forge partnerships with others who share similar interests and goals. These connections can extend beyond the GMB process, leading to ongoing collaboration and knowledge sharing among individuals and organizations working to promote agricultural innovation in rural areas.

GMB is a powerful tool for enhancing rural communication services related to agricultural innovation as it fosters dialogue, builds shared understanding, helps identify barriers and solutions, enhances decision-making, promotes ownership and empowerment, and facilitates networking and collaboration among stakeholders.

Appendix 1

Table A1.1. GMB workshops with farmers and multiple rural stakeholders

Workshop

Stakeholders

Number of participants

Discussion topics

1

Farmers with higher levels of education

6

Adoption of record-keeping

2

Farmers with lower levels of education

6

Adoption of record-keeping

3

Farmers with higher levels of education

6

Adoption of teat dipping

4

Farmers with lower levels of education

6

Adoption of teat dipping

5

Various stakeholders, including dairy companies, cooperatives, the livestock sector, agencies, animalhealth extension services, and technology providers

7

Adoption of recordkeeping and teat dipping

6

Farmers with higher levels of education

7

Adoption of digitalization and its impacts

7

Farmers with lower levels of education

7

Adoption of digitalization and its impacts

8

Farmers with higher levels of education

7

Adoption of digitalization and its impacts

9

Farmers with lower levels of education

8

Adoption of digitalization and its impacts

10

Various stakeholders, including dairy companies, cooperative boards, livestock agencies, animal-health extension services, technology providers, representatives of the farmers’ council, cooperatives and farmers.

6

The future scenario of digitalization and its impacts

Note: Farmers with higher levels of education include those who graduated from high school and university. Farmers with lower levels of education include those who attended or graduated from primary school.
Sources: Author’s own elaboration, adapted from Budiman, I., Derks, M. and Sahara, D. (forthcoming). Factors for shifting system-level behaviour in innovation adoption: Case of mastitis management in dairy farming in Indonesia; and Budiman, I., Wagemakers, A., Derks, M., Sahara, S. and Moore, S. 2024. Socio-environmental systems in technology adoption in animal husbandry in South-East Asia: A framework synthesis approach. NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences, 96(1): 2349518. https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2024.2349518

Appendix 2

The following causal loop diagrams (CLDs) show four rural communication and knowledge generation types: orange items are innovation problems, blue items are adoption barriers, yellow items are interventions for uptake, and green items are innovation impacts.

Figure A2.1. CLD: adoption of teat dipping

Source: Adapted from Budiman, I., Derks, M. and Sahara, D. (forthcoming). Factors for shifting system-level behaviour in innovation adoption: Case of mastitis management in dairy farming in Indonesia.

Figure A2.2. CLD: adoption of record-keeping

Source: Adapted from Budiman, I., Derks, M. and Sahara, D. (forthcoming). Factors for shifting system-level behaviour in innovation adoption: Case of mastitis management in dairy farming in Indonesia.

Figure A2.3. CLD: adoption of digitalization in dairy production and its impacts

Source: Adapted from Budiman, I., Derks, M. and Sahara, D. (forthcoming). Factors for shifting system-level behaviour in innovation adoption: Case of mastitis management in dairy farming in Indonesia.

References

Akzar, R., Umberger, W. & Peralta, A. 2023. Understanding heterogeneity in technology adoption among Indonesian smallholder dairy farmers. Agribusiness, 39(2): 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21782

Akzar, R., Permani, R. & Umberger, W. 2016. Understanding Indonesian smallholder dairy farmers’ decision to adopt multiple farm-level innovations. Conference presentation at 2016 Conference (60th), 2–5 February 2016. Canberra, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

Basu, P. & Chakraborty, J. 2011. New technologies, old divides: linking internet access to social and locational characteristics of US farms. GeoJournal, 76(5): 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9370-x

Bérard, C. 2010. Group model building using system dynamics: an analysis of methodological frameworks. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods, 8(1): 35–45.

Bozeman, B., Rimes, H. & Youtie, J. 2015. The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Res.Policy, 44(1): 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.008

Budiman, I. 2024. Digitalisation in dairy production: Impacts on the socio-economic system Unpublished manuscript.

Budiman, I. & Alta, A. 2022. Technology and Knowledge Transfers to Dairy Farms Private Sector Contribution to Improve Milk Production.Jakarta, Center for Indonesian Policy Studies. doi:10.35497/557427

Budiman, I., Derks, M. & Sahara, S. (forthcoming). Factors for shifting system-level behaviour in innovation adoption: Case of mastitis management in dairy farming in Indonesia.

Budiman, I., Wagemakers, A., Derks, M., Sahara, S. & Moore, S. 2024. Socio-environmental systems in technology adoption in animal husbandry in South-East Asia: A framework synthesis approach. NJAS: Impact Agric. Life Sci., 96(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2024.2349518

Cerf, M., Guillot, M.N. & Olry, P. 2011. Acting as a Change Agent in Supporting Sustainable Agriculture: How to Cope with New Professional Situations? J. Agric. Educ. Ext., 17(1): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536340

Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D. & Dedieu, B. 2012. Farming Systems Research: an approach to inquiry. In: I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon & B. Dedieu, eds. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, pp. 3–31. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands.

Feola, G., Sattler, C. & Saysel, A.K. 2012. Simulation models in Farming Systems Research: potential and challenges. In: I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon & B. Dedieu, eds. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, pp. 281–306. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands.

Herrera, H. & Kopainsky, B. 2020. Using system dynamics to support a participatory assessment of resilience. Environ. Syst. Decis., 40(3): 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09760-5

Herrmann, S., van de Fliert, E. & Alkan-Olsson, J. 2011. Editorial: Integrated assessment of agricultural sustainability: exploring the use of models in stakeholder processes. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 9(2): 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.582364

Hovmand, P.S. 2014. Community Based System Dynamics. New York, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8763-0_2

Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B. & Leeuwis, C. 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon & B. Dedieu, eds. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, pp. 457–483. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands.

Kondratenko, Y. 2003.How Can Systems Thinking Be Used to Support Rural Development Decisions in Latvia. Lund, Sweden, Lund University. Master thesis.

Lie, H., Rich, K.M. & Burkart, S. 2017. Participatory system dynamics modelling for dairy value chain development in Nicaragua. Dev. Pract. 27(6): 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1343800

Lioutas, E.D., Charatsari, C. & De Rosa, M. 2021. Digitalization of agriculture: A way to solve the food problem or a trolley dilemma? Technol. Soc., 67: 101744.

Lisson, S., MacLeod, N., McDonald, C., Corfield, J., Pengelly, B., Wirajaswadi, L., Rahman, R. et al. 2010. A participatory, farming systems approach to improving Bali cattle production in the smallholder crop–livestock systems of Eastern Indonesia. Agric. Syst., 103(7): 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.05.002

Maertens, A., Michelson, H. & Nourani, V. 2021. How Do Farmers Learn from Extension Services? Evidence from Malawi. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 103(2): 569–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12135

Neef, A. & Neubert, D. 2011. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making. Agric. Hum. Values, 28(2): 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9272-z

Prasetyo, A.S. & Firdauzi, A. 2023. Determinants of Farmer’s Participation in Implementation Community Empowerment: A Case Study of Thematic Village in Indonesia. Habitat, 34(2): 178–189.

Rich, K.M., Berends, J. & Cooper, G.S. 2022. Enriching value chains through maps: reflections from spatial group model building in Myanmar and India. Dev. Pract., 32(2): 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2021.1907545

Shore, B. & Cross, B.J. 2005. Exploring the role of national culture in the management of large-scale international science projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag., 23(1): 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.009

Siokou, C., Morgan, R. & Shiell, A. 2014. Group model building: a participatory approach to understanding and acting on systems. Public Health Res. Pract., 25(1): e2511404. https://dx.doi.org/10.17061/phrp2511404

Šūmane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I.d.I., Rivera, M., Chebach, T. & Ashkenazy, A. 2018. Local and farmers› knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. J. Rural Stud., 59: 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020

Tanaka, H., Onitsuka, K. & Hoshino, S. 2023. Non-optimal impacts of internet expansion on community capacity in rural areas. Res. Glob., 7: 100176.

Tian, D., Zhang, M., Zhao, A., Wang, B., Shi, J. & Feng, J. 2021. Agent-based modeling and simulation of edible fungi growers’ adoption behavior towards fungal chaff recycling technology. Agric. Syst., 190: 103138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103138

[1] These technologies are being promoted by the Smart-In-Ag programme, implemented jointly by Wageningen University and Research in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and IPB University in Indonesia.

PART II.

Applying an RCS approach to address inequalities

Overview

Part II gives due consideration to equality, a key feature of the RCS approach. Rural communication services are participatory, inclusive and negotiated, making them a potent tool to address various types of divides and to promote equality. The approaches and strategies of RCS ensure that all voices are heard and all perspectives are considered, fostering a sense of engagement and involvement. The chapters in Part II apply and expand the RCS framework, which FAO developed in cooperation with members of the Global Research Initiative for Rural Communication. The framework serves as a guide to reach the goal of “Enhanced capacity for informed decision-making and collective action by rural people” (FAO, 2024, p. 6). The framework has four main elements (guiding principles, approaches, strategy and facilitation) and an enabling dimension (institutionalization). The framework is visualized and further explained in Chapter 6. After presenting the framework in general terms, the chapter zooms in on the guiding principles of the framework. Chapter 7 addresses the institutionalization dimension of the framework, and Chapter 8 addresses the element of facilitation. Chapter 9 concludes Part II by linking RCS to the theoretical framework of the multidimensional model for change (MMC).

Inclusivity and equality are core themes of Part II. The authors of the chapters see these themes as fundamental underlying principles in their research and in the interventions they study or facilitate. By adopting either a rights-based approach (the people who are subject to change have the right to be involved in designing the pathway to that change), a normative approach (for instance, by empowering marginalized and vulnerable people) or a logical approach (together we are stronger), collaborative change is based on including people and giving them equal voice. In addition to the central themes of inclusivity and equality, different authors also stress the importance of a systemic approach. Only by adopting a systemic, theoretical action-research framework that involves the stakeholders can equality, inclusivity and participation be addressed. It is within the system and simply because of the system’s existence that inequality exists. Inclusion and exclusion are system-related concepts. RCS are grounded in a systems perspective and address inequalities within a system. In doing so, RCS promote sharing and bringing issues out into the open through dialogical, horizontal and participatory communication. Bringing people together in collaborative interventions, public– private or other forms of inclusive partnerships, multistakeholder platforms, or living lab approaches is essential for making RCS appropriate and effective, with inclusivity and equality.

In Chapter 6, Paoloregel Samonte reports on his research into the digital inclusion of Filipino smallholder farmers in the Digital Farmers Program (DFP) of the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) in Region-IV A CALABARZON. The DFP was analysed for inclusivity using the RCS framework and Helsper’s concept of social relativity of digital exclusion (SRDE) at the grassroots level. The results show that tendencies for centrally driven, top-down approaches to implementation remain prevalent, with limited consultation and governance representation mechanisms in place. Challenges in digital access and infrastructure, programme management and implementation, and farmers’ attitudes and motivation abound. There should be a wider rethink of the state’s policies and programmes in levelling inequalities and fostering social parity. While gender equity remains a critical dimension for inclusion, the DFP’s case showed that youth orientation and engagement deserve equal – if not greater – emphasis. Samonte further argues that programme responsiveness is another salient feature that warrants inclusion in the RCS framework.

The institutionalization aspect of the RCS framework is addressed in Chapter 7 by Connetie Ayesiga, Esther Ronner and Paul T.M. Ingenbleek. The study presents four case studies of agriculture-related information and communication technology (ICT) platforms in Uganda. ICT platforms as institutions that deliver and sustain RCS for family farmers and other value-chain actors are increasingly important. However, opinions differ on how ICT platforms can best fulfil their role. The research findings indicate that ICT platforms are moving away from an exclusive focus on providing agricultural information towards the coordination of value-chains and from an exclusive concentration on either input or output markets to the inclusion of both markets. Thus, they are moving towards full value-chain coordination to address the multiple barriers to uptake that farmers face.

In Chapter 8, Prakash Raj Bista, Loes Witteveen, Ajit Tumbahangphe, Jan Fliervoet, Walter Verspui, Umesh Paudel and Naresh Subedi adopted the RCS framework as their point of departure and zoomed in on the design and facilitation of two innovative community-art-based RCS strategies: serious gaming and poetic-inquiry. Specifically, the authors report on a project exploring rural communication and mediated participation in the Terai Buffer Zone in Nepal. The project integrates the social-ecological context and rural communication processes into stewardship strategies for family farming in an area near tiger habitats in Nepal’s natural reserves, integrating a nature-conservation perspective with a rural-livelihoods perspective. Through the two innovative, community-art-based RCS strategies, the farming families express how they interact with water systems, natural grasslands and wildlife populations in the buffer zone. Participation and horizontal communication are central to the strategies, and facilitators are seen as process designers, creating space and crafting routes for change. Based on the two community-art methodologies, the voices of farming families are heard through active social imagination.

Chapter 9, by Paolo Mefalopulos, closes Part II. The chapter (also awarded the FAO/IAMCR Rural Communication Services Research Award) provides a map to improve the effectiveness of RCS by framing them within the multidimensional model for change (MMC). This model, rooted in a participatory approach, identifies and assesses key elements needed to promote change in various dimensions – the public policy dimension, the institutional/organizational dimension, and the sociocultural dimension. RCS must address these first three dimensions in order to be successful in the fourth dimension – the individual dimension, where behaviour change happens. Mefalopulos explains this model and outlines its relevance to RCS.

Chapter 6

Digital agri-extension for all: an inclusivity analysis of the Philippines’ Digital Farmers Program

Authors:

Paoloregel Samonte

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Italy
Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

1. Introduction

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are pivotal in the realization of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, enabling societal participation, facilitating knowledge exchange and allowing feedback loops necessary for recalibrating development strategies (Heeks and Stanforth, 2015; UN, 2015). In the Global South, where agriculture remains a major economic sector (Namyenya et al., 2021; Birke and Knierim, 2020), ICTs are harnessed to improve agricultural productivity (Aker, 2011; Baumüller, 2018; Deichmann et al., 2016). The need to utilize ICTs in agriculture became even more pronounced when the United Nations proclaimed 2019 to 2028 the Decade of Family Farming, spotlighting the critical role family farmers play in the development agenda, particularly in Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger (UN, 2015).

In highly agricultural developing countries such as the Philippines, family farming constitutes the backbone of agricultural production (Department of Agriculture, 2021). Family farming – or smallholder farming – is defined as family-managed agricultural, fisheries, aquaculture, forestry and pastoral production that relies primarily on family labour. With the global trend of increasing digitalization, there is a need for innovation in communication services to assist family farmers in strengthening agricultural productivity (Steinke et al., 2022). However, building rural farmers’ access to digital agriculture remains primarily overlooked in the literature (Klerkx and Rose, 2020; Rose et al., 2018), despite clear manifestations of the digital divide furthering societal inequalities in various realms and sectors (van Dijk, 2013; Rotz et al., 2019; Klerkx and Rose, 2020), including farming (Schlaile et al., 2017; Pigford et al., 2018).

Agricultural extension (agri-extension) services supporting digital transformation in the sector is an innovation that is widely implemented in the Philippines. However, access to digital services remains limited, and digital literacy remains poor (Panganiban, 2019; Manalo, 2013; De La Pena-Bandalaria, 2017). As such, farmer inclusivity needs to be investigated. In particular, the Digital Farmers Program (DFP), of the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), presents a viable case study for examining how digital agriculture initiatives run by the Philippine government promote farmer inclusion, in terms of programme design and ontheground implementation.

The DFP is an ICT capacity-building initiative co-operated by the ATI and Smart Communications, Inc. – a private telecommunications company. The programme aims to assist Filipino farmers by enhancing digital information access, digital literacy and market-access opportunities. The programme develops farmers’ capacity in the use of various technologies, from smartphone and social media use to online payment mechanisms and e-commerce (ATI, 2023a). While implementation occurs nationwide, Region IV-A CALABARZON, comprising five provinces,[1] remains a central geographic hub in programme delivery. It is the programme’s pilot site and most active site of implementation to date.

This study seeks to assess the inclusivity of digital agri-extension services for family farming in the Philippines via the DFP as a proxy, by applying complementary evaluation mechanisms at the institutional and farmer levels. Recommendations informed by such an approach aim to contribute to bridging the gap between programme design at the decision-making level and implementation at the ground level, ensuring that inclusive design is driven forward by pressure from above (policy) and clamour from below (user motivation and agency). On a more theoretical level, the study contributes to the formation of more robust theoretical constructs of inclusivity in the context of digital information services for agriculture.

2. Agricultural extension and the digital divide in the Philippines

The digital divide refers to the disparity in access to and use of digital technologies, particularly the internet, between different population segments (Norris, 2001; Tipton, 2002; Ragnedda and Muschert, 2013). The Philippines, where the digital divide is the norm rather than the exception, suffers from multifarious challenges in the delivery of agri-extension services (De La Pena-Bandalaria, 2007; Panganiban, 2019). This has significant implications for various agricultural sectors in the Philippines, especially for smallholder farmers, who make up a substantial portion of the country’s agricultural workforce.

The agricultural digital divide in the Philippines – considered one of the world’s “digital poor” countries – entails disparities in both access and use (Panganiban, 2019; Trinidad, 2002; Alampay, 2006; Flor, 2001). Lack of access, for instance, is linked to the country’s shifting political priorities and archipelagic characteristics, while issues of usage are linked to poverty and to inequality in skills and motivations (Alampay, 2006; Siar, 2005). Other issues include “insufficient time; expensive computer rentals; language issues (as most text on the internet is in English); and computer anxiety (or the feeling of discomfort when in front of computers)” (Manalo, 2013, p. 71).

While access is undeniably scarce, the presence of agricultural information for Filipino farmers on the internet is not. Thus, optimization of reach, according to Manalo and Van de Fliert (2011), requires ensuring the participatory design of technology, synergy among various sectors (such as the social sciences and information technology sectors), complementation between old and novel technologies, and the use of infomediaries (that is, facilitators of information, such as farmers’ children). This needs to be coupled with a critical attitude towards normative top-down approaches to ICT for development in agriculture, fragmented initiatives running in silos, short-term mindsets, and absent or ineffective feedback mechanisms (Ona et al., 2012).

In state governance, there is indeed good reason to capitalize on improving access to digital technologies for agriculture. For instance, by boosting economic growth, ICTs for agriculture can help protect national independence and self-sufficiency (Tipton, 2002). This makes agricultural digitalization of national interest and is precisely one of the reasons for the Philippine government’s prioritization of e-governance for agriculture (Panganiban, 2019).

3. Theoretical underpinnings

FAO’s rural communication services framework

Communication, whether digital or traditional, remains an indispensable component of agricultural transformation, especially in rural farming communities (FAO, 1994). One model of communication that is purpose-driven, participatory and attuned to the complexities of family farming systems is communication for development (ComDev) (UNDP, 2011). The Communication Initiative, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Bank define ComDev as:

a social process based on dialogue using a broad range of methods and tools. It is about seeking change at different levels and involves listening, building trust, sharing knowledge and skills, shaping policies, debating, and learning for sustained and meaningful change. It is not public relations or corporate communication (2007, p. 209-210).

Thus, ComDev is a critical tool in providing access to knowledge, participation in policy dialogue, and social learning for many family farming stakeholders (Dagron, 2001).

Falling under the umbrella concept of ComDev is the more focused concept of rural communication services (RCS), defined by FAO as:

sustained two-way processes, delivered regularly to the rural population to enhance rural livelihoods by facilitating equitable access to knowledge and information; enabling social inclusion in decision-making; and building stronger links between rural institutions and local communities (FAO, 2014, p. 2).

RCS uses facilitated, intentional and continuous processes involving various mediated and interpersonal communication mechanisms to ensure actor engagement and participation (Balit and Acunzo, 2019; FAO, 2014). RCS also prioritizes working with marginalized communities with unique needs, such as farmers, migrants, communities in poverty and hunger-stricken areas, and Indigenous Populations (Berrigan, 1979).

Agri-extension investment and practice are typically premised on the assumption that technological advancements produced in agricultural science are transferred to its “beneficiaries” via “extension experts” (Röling and van de Fliert, 1994). This assumption ignores local knowledge, undermines farmers’ agency and creativity and overlooks the necessity of farmer participation towards eventual technology adoption and utilization (Woodhill et al., 1992; Campbell, 1992). Röling and van de Fliert (1994) argue that, in reality, farmers adopt ideas generated by fellow farmers and actively tailor insights from outsider knowledge to meaningfully weave them into their sociocultural realities in agricultural technology application. RCS counteracts the typical top-down approaches to extension delivery by operationally defining principles that must be observed for interventions to be genuinely inclusive and participatory.

RCS likewise proves responsive to the challenge of digital inclusion. According to van Dijk’s (2005) digital divide theory, adoption of a new technology first necessitates motivation on the part of the individual. Once motivation is present, the ability to acquire a product (such as a computer, the internet, etc.) comes next. Resources to maintain the use of the technology (such as ink, software, subscriptions, etc.) should likewise be available. This access should be coupled with the necessary digital skills for full technology appropriation to take place (van Dijk, 2013). In parallel, RCS argues that farmer participation is essential to increase motivation in agricultural technology adoption, fostering genuine digital inclusion at both the access and skills levels. A supportive enabling environment at the institutional level should complement this.

To operationalize the concept of RCS, FAO (2022) developed the RCS framework (see Figure 1). The framework has four main components, an end goal and an institutionalization dimension. Its guiding principles are: 1) the right to information, or the acknowledgement of citizens’ right to relevant, timely and factual information; 2) demand-driven, referring to programme or service design that addresses needs from the ground; 3) gender equitable, or the enabling of equitable participation among users of various genders; 4) fostering social inclusion, or the delivery of a programme or a service in a manner that is inclusive to every stakeholder, regardless of sex, social status, health, etc.; and 5) local-context driven, or the tailoring of services or programmes to fit the local, sociocultural contexts of their users. Finally, its end goal is to foster enhanced capacity for informed decision-making and collective action by rural people (FAO, 2022).

Figure 1. Rural communication services framework

Source: FAO. 2022. UNDFF Forum on Inclusive Rural Communication Services for Family Farming. Rome.

Helsper’s concept of the social relativity of digital exclusion

Helsper’s concept of the social relativity of digital exclusion (SRDE) was applied in this study to complement RCS with a counterpart critical evaluation approach that foregrounds users’ motivations and experiences in accessing digital technologies. Essentially, SRDE – a relatively new concept in digital exclusion literature – contends that scholars studying digital disengagement should not only focus on the micro (individual) and macro (structural) factors causing digital deprivation, but should equally spotlight meso-level factors (such as individual relationships within peers, relatives and the immediate community) that propel digital deprivation (Helsper, 2017).

The SRDE concept serves as a critique and a complementary perspective to earlier scholarship on digital exclusion, which frequently uses individual traits as starting and ending evaluation points (see van Dijk, 2005; 2013). Such viewpoints suggest that stable, personal variables such as socioeconomic conditions constantly impact individual participation in various digital-adoption contexts without solid theorization on social relationships and individual influences over one another (for instance, in a household or community setting) (see also Haddon, 2011). These methods fail to recognize that people’s daily lives are fluid and context-dependent (Howarth et al., 2013) and that individual capacity and motivation to overcome barriers to technological access is subjective and socially contingent, and therefore varies within and among individuals over time (Helsper, 2017). The social contextuality of deprivation, thus, denotes that feelings of exclusion depend on the individual’s choice of a comparator – their “referent” (Folger, 1987). Everyday socialization and one’s socially constructed identity guide this interpersonal assessment of social parity among people (Burchardt, 2005).

Perhaps Crosby’s classical illustration of relative deprivation remains most elucidating:

An individual feels resentment about failure to possess something only when she (a) sees that similar others possess it, (b) she wants it, (c) she feels entitled to possess it, (d) she thinks that possession of it is feasible, and (e) she does not blame herself for her failure to possess it (cited in Helsper, 2017, p. 228).

The latter is especially crucial when the goal is to drive a collective movement towards ending marginalization. Parallel to this line of argument, initiatives that seek genuine reform towards digital inclusion must take into account: 1) actual digital disparities (objective relative deprivation), 2) cognition (an individual’s assessment of these objective discrepancies), and 3) affect (individual emotions about the meaning and validity of these discrepancies) related to digital exclusion. By integrating various individual, structural and social–relational disparities and spotlighting individual motivation and agency in digital engagement, Helsper’s SRDE thus provides a nuanced and comprehensive lens to interrogating farmer inclusion in the study. Not only does it seek to indicate how digital agri-extension services can be made more inclusive for family farming and focus on intervention design; it also asks how farmers can be made to want to be included in the first place, fully acknowledging farmers’ control and influence over their own material and intellectual resources.

4. Methodology

This study adopts the position that the social order regulating the delivery of the DFP can be understood via empirical research rather than highly interpretive methodologies. Thus, in problematizing the research inquiry, critical realism was adopted as the methodological grounding (see Maxwell, 2012; Pawson, 2013). Critical realism renders possible the “disentangling [of] patterns of complex causality to understand how a particular type of process works to bring about particular kinds of outcomes” (Hoffecker, 2021, p. 4), enabling the analysis of the modus operandi (Scriven, 1974) of DFP delivery and the mechanisms in which the programme is made more inclusive.

The case study method is employed to adequately capture the nuances of decision-makers’ conceptualization and implementation of the DFP and the experience of participating family farmers. Becker (1970) defines a case study as the detailed exploration of a single case, enabling the researcher to: 1) gain adequate knowledge of the phenomenon based on a focused and rigorous analysis; 2) sufficiently (if not completely) unpack the case; and 3) generate universal theoretical conclusions based on patterns and regularities observed in the phenomenon. In this study, the case of the DFP was co-identified with FAO and the ATI as a viable proxy to conduct the assessment, with the CALABARZON region as the geographical site of inquiry.

ATI government officials and staff (from the national, regional and local levels) and Filipino family farmers and representatives comprise the research participants. Ultimately contributing to the study are 18 respondents and collaborators, all selected via purposive sampling (combining snowballing and stratified purposeful methods to target specific subgroups identified by other informants [Miles and Huberman, 1994]). The initial participants were co-identified through ATI representatives. Corresponding participants from the national and regional offices were then selected, which snowballed into the identification of Filipino smallholder farmers and their representatives from CALABARZON.

Semistructured key informant interviews and virtual focus group discussions (FGDs) were the primary methods applied in the study. The assessment of the DFP, at the institutional level, was based on the RCS framework. Semistructured interviews were conducted with key informants from the ATI at the national, regional and local levels. The interviews were conducted in a mix of English and Tagalog (colloquially referred to as “Taglish”) – the usual way of speaking of the ordinary Filipino. All five interviews were conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams from 27 April to 10 May 2023, on a date and time selected by the respondents. Each interview lasted between approximately 30 minutes and 1.5 hours, totalling about 5 hours of interviews.

The grassroots-level assessment was based on Helsper’s concept of SRDE. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in a hybrid format: all participants and a research support team were gathered together in person while the main facilitator led the discussions via Microsoft Teams. Twelve family farmers and their representatives in CALABARZON participated in the FGDs, revealing the realities of DFP implementation and participation as experienced by programme beneficiaries. Each FGD comprised six participants, four of whom were DFP participants and two were not. The two FGDs were conducted consecutively on 8 May 2023, at the Office of the Municipal Agriculturist in Magdalena, Laguna: one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Equal sex representation was observed as six women and six men participated in the two FGDs.

Like the key informant interviews, the FGD questionnaire was designed in Taglish and the discussions were also held in Taglish. Each FGD lasted for no more than 2 hours, including briefing, introductions and breaks, and both combined totalled approximately 3.5 hours. Apart from the participants, the FGDs were attended in person by: two representatives from the University of the Philippines Los Baños – College of Development Communication, two representatives from the ATI national office, two representatives from the ATI regional training centre, and at least five staff from the Office of the Municipal Agriculturist.

Data analysis was conducted during and after fieldwork. To better demonstrate the data analysis process, it was subdivided into three parts: 1) data organization, 2) thematic analysis, and 3) interpretation in relation to the study’s theoretical framework. Data organization entailed organizing primary and secondary sources, writing research journals and transcribing interviews. All the interviews and FGD recordings were transcribed verbatim to ensure that conversational nuances were reflected and considered in the analysis. Grammatical errors and lengthened stammering (often associated with difficulties with English expression) were later corrected to avoid unfair representation of intellect, especially since English is not the participants’ native language (Swartz, 2011). The interviews and FGDs were transcribed manually (that is, without the use of online tools) for two primary reasons: to avoid the glaring inaccuracies often resulting from the use of transcription software, especially since data collection was conducted in Taglish; and second, because the act of transcribing helps in recalling significant moments during data gathering not captured by note-taking.

After organizing the data, themes embedded in the qualitative data were identified, assessed and reported (Braun and Clark, 2006). In qualitative research, a theme is a “pattern that captures something significant or interesting about the data” (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017, p. 3356). Themes typically emerge from the process of coding. In this interpretive act, the researcher assigns a “summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 3). For this study, only single-cycle coding was conducted since the structure of the interview and FGD questionnaires, as informed by their theoretical backing, easily made the most salient and significant themes evident.

This process made it possible to render the study’s most substantial findings, which were developed into coherent narratives. During this phase, participant quotations in Taglish were translated into English. Finally, the study’s main findings were interpreted in relation to the study’s theoretical framework.

5. Results

This section articulates the findings derived from data collection to shed light on the inclusivity of the DFP – both in design and delivery, as implemented in Region IV-A CALABARZON in the Philippines.

Institutional-level assessment: Digital Farmers Program and inclusivity from the perspective of the implementers

The assessment of DFP vis-a-vis FAO’s RCS principles revealed aspects of inclusion addressed by the programme as well as several gaps. Table 1 provides a summary of the findings, and these are further elaborated in the text that follows the table.

Table 1. Summary of the Digital Farmers Program assessment with programme implementers based on the principles of FAO’s rural communication services framework

RCS principle

Summarized findings

Right to information

Generally positive

Demand-driven

Quite successful on several fronts, although an inherent design limitation and a tendency for top-down service delivery still need to be overcome

Gender equitable

Completely overlooked in design but observed in practice

Fostering social inclusion

Needs improvement on multiple fronts, contingent upon the Philippine Government’s higher-level inclusion policies and programmes

Local-context driven

Mixed results, applying a few localized strategies in implementation, but with an inclination for top-down approaches

Note: RCS: rural communication services.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Right to information

Interviews with key informants indicate generally positive feedback on the programme’s acknowledgement of farmers’ right to information. According to Joeven Calasagsag, Interim Chief of the Information Services Division at ATI, “The DFP is designed to empower farmers through information… Our farmers, our extension workers – they are the ones meant to benefit from this” (personal interview, 2023). As such, the DFP covers a wide array of digital applications designed to address specific information needs, from weather decision tools to plant-disease management and cropping calendar applications.

When asked where content for the DFP modules is sourced and who creates the modules, Antonieta Arceo, National Deputy Director of ATI, explained that ATI partners with industry experts to address rural farmers’ information needs. This end goal of the DFP – to inform and educate farmers – was reiterated by Desiree Macale and Juliet Bucal, who work for the Office of the Municipal Agriculturist in Magdalena, Laguna, overseeing local DFP promotion and communication, including liaising and targeting farmer participants.

Similarly, Rolando V. Maningas, Director of ATI’s Regional Center in Region IV-A CALABARZON, emphasized the need for smallholder farmers to be up-to-date with the latest agricultural technologies – precisely the reason DFP was conceptualized:

It’s not just simply realizing [farmers’] right to factual information, it is giving them the opportunity to be in the trend… It’s giving them what’s really for them. They play a critical role in agricultural development, so they should not be left behind (R. Maningas, personal interview, 2023).

Demand-driven

Regarding being demand-driven, the DFP seems to be successful on several fronts. However, an inherent design limitation and a tendency for top-down service delivery must be overcome in order to enhance programme responsiveness. For instance, Calasagsag acknowledges the importance of bottom-up approaches in implementation to increase success rates and programme uptake. “In all our interventions, we must ask ourselves, ‘Is that really what [our stakeholders] need?’… We have to consider their needs already, even at the planning stage (personal interview, 2023). According to Angelica Marie Umali, Information Officer II and DFP Coordinator at the ATI national office, several field visits and needs assessments were conducted in a number of communities before the programme implementation.

Designing the modules, however, was a different story:

Our problem was, during the module design phase, our participants were purely from the RTCs.[2] We weren’t able to consider inviting farmers or representatives themselves. So mostly, it is only the implementers’ perspectives that were considered in module development (A. Umali, personal interview, 2023).

Macale and Bucal, who liaise directly with farmers, were also left out of the module design process. “Our manager was probably consulted by the central office. After that, [the programme] was cascaded down to us,” (D. Macale, personal interview, 2023). They conjectured that their manager had represented their constituents’ needs in those higher-level meetings.

Programme implementation does not guarantee freedom from private-sector interest, especially since the DFP was conceived in close (and seemingly exclusive) partnership with Smart Communications, Inc. Likewise, not all needs and demands from the ground are addressed yet. According to Calasagsag:

For now, our DFP is focused on one crop: rice. We are yet to develop modules for other commodities. We have our vegetable farmers, our corn farmers, livestock… so these are things we still have to look at (J. Calasagsag, personal interview, 2023).

Despite these current limitations in teaching and content, ATI officials were impressed by farmers’ curiosity, creativity and practice of personal agency in learning:

Of course, we can’t teach everything in the DFP. But when the farmers already know how to access applications, they eventually explore themselves… That’s the surprising [part]. Farmers start to explore once they are engaged (R. Maningas, personal interview, 2023).

This engagement thus makes up for limitations in addressing the growing knowledge demands of the heterogeneous farmer population.

Gender equitable

Admittedly, gender dimensions were overlooked in the conceptualization and implementation of the DFP. When asked about the programme’s gender equitability, Calasagsag noted, “Honestly, sir, straight answer: No, it was not considered… Gender was never a point of discussion” (J. Calasagsag, personal interview, 2023). Maningas argued that gender is a non-issue in the first place, “If you ask me whether [DFP] needs males, females, no, it does not matter. Because what we are asking here is ‘who is interested to learn?’” (R. Maningas, personal interview, 2023).

While expectations for participation were skewed towards men (for instance, the training master list is heavily male-dominated), practice reveals a different story. Surprisingly, most DFP participants country-wide are women: of the 5 967 participants, 3 147 (52.7 percent) are women, while 2 820 (47.3 percent) are men. Arceo shares deeper insights into why the DFP attracts women and into the overall contribution of women in the Philippine agriculture sector:

When we piloted our DFP 103 on smart agriculture for rice, we saw that women participate equally in farm decision-making. … They hugely influence household spending as they control the purse, and they also contribute enormously to other off-farm activities, such as produce processing, value-adding, marketing. … Now that farming is increasingly becoming mechanized, women can also operate mechanization activities (A. Arceo, personal interview, 2023).

Because of this, Arceo contends that gender equity is not a huge issue in the Philippine agriculture sector, as women’s inclusion and involvement ‘comes naturally’. In addition, the Philippine government requires by law that all projects allot at least 5 percent of their budget to ensure gender sensitivity.

Although the DFP does not include gender considerations, it does promote youth participation and involvement, embedded in the programme design. “Concept-wise, the DFP is done in pairs: one youth and one elder farmer. Ideally, it is the youth who will assist the farmer in learning digital tools and applications” (J. Calasagsag, personal interview, 2023). Thus, youth participation is deemed more crucial than women’s inclusion in the DFP.

Fostering social inclusion

The DFP requires improvements on multiple fronts to foster better social inclusion – an issue not exclusive to the programme but that the whole country grapples with. Design-wise, the DFP was organized so that no subprioritization occurs. “We only look for participants who are willing and have time to devote. … As much as we can, we try to cater to everyone (J. Calasagsag, personal interview, 2023). However, the DFP seems to lean towards lowland farmers with better access to technology. Rice farmers, in particular, are at an advantage. According to Arceo:

There are plenty of applications available for rice, so unintentionally, they become prioritized. … And while we don’t prioritize farmers based on geographical location, we get more lowland farmers to participate. Because upland farmers also struggle with internet connectivity (A. Arceo, personal interview, 2023).

At the level of Region IV-A CALABARZON, Macale and Bucal tried to create a better balance by targeting farmers of different crops. Revealing how, despite a soft set of criteria guiding participant selection, personal relationships ultimately influence the process, Bucal stated:

We invite farmers per commodity, like buffalo, rice, corn, vegetables and even organic produce… fruit trees also, such that no commodity is left behind. … I also included my mother-in-law in the master list for DFP 102. She plants cacao (J. Bucal, personal interview, 2023).

Multiple opportunities to enhance social inclusion still exist. At the basic level, programme accessibility for persons with disabilities is yet to be considered. Arceo contended that the Philippines has a long way to go regarding the inclusion of persons with disabilities. Acknowledging that this is something the Philippine Government continues to aspire for, Calasagsag added:

The DFP is not designed yet for accessibility [for persons with disabilities ]. … We must be honest about this. Other countries may have grown in this aspect… but we in the Philippines, we are not yet at that level (J. Calasagsag, personal interview, 2023).

A further limitation to inclusivity in the DFP is that the language used in communication resources tends to be English or Filipino, rendering them inaccessible to the Philippine population who speak different regional dialects or languages. More importantly, mechanisms are lacking to encourage non-interested, demotivated or tech-averse farmers. While this ensures that highly motivated individuals are trained, it misses the opportunity to engage farmers who are hesitant and dubious of technology. “Our hope is that we gain their interest when they see their fellow farmers participating in the programme and that our [participating] farmers later influence others to join, too” (A. Umali, personal interview, 2023).

Local-context driven

The evaluation of the extent to which DFP is driven by the local context points to mixed results, with participatory approaches to implementation but with an inherent inclination for top-down service delivery. Indeed, several local consultations and field visits were organized prior to implementation to assess local conditions and needs from the ground. As described by Arceo:

For DFP 103, we organized FGDs with communities… This served as the baseline for our training rollout, so we know which gaps are being addressed… Our pre-test, post-test and evaluation also helped us determine specific needs from the ground (personal interview, 2023).

Once the training modules are completed, however, they are cascaded to the regions packaged, fully formed and ready to roll out, with only limited leeway for localization. “We can’t really deviate much from the modules. They are standardized, and we have an ISO protocol for that. But we can make some adjustments. We have free will to do so, especially in localizing the training” (R. Maningas, personal interview, 2023). Calasagsag adds to this, saying that the RTCs can get creative in their delivery to cater to regional sensitivities and peculiarities. Arceo also supported this assertion and shared that while national guidelines exist, a certain level of flexibility is allowed for field implementation.

Summary

Overall, the DFP requires stronger inclusion mechanisms. The programme’s quality of inclusion – as embedded in programme design and delivery and evaluated vis-a-vis the RCS framework – shows mixed results, with clear indications of opportunities for improvement. For instance, there is a need to restrategize delivery around universal programme accessibility. Parallel to this should be a wider rethink of the state’s policies and programmes in levelling inequalities and fostering social parity. Room for flexibility to accommodate local demands (for instance, with regard to content and language) needs to be created and strengthened. While gender equity remains a critical dimension for inclusion, the DFP’s case showed that youth orientation and engagement deserves equal – if not greater – emphasis. Programme responsiveness is another salient feature that warrants inclusion in the RCS framework, given the rapidly changing technological trajectories for agriculture amid shifting community priorities.

Grassroots-level assessment: DFP and inclusivity from the participants’ perspective

To complement the results of the DFP’s institutional-level assessment for inclusivity, farmers and their perception of inclusion within the DFP were explored based on Helsper’s SRDE. When asked initially about their notion of inclusion, most participants referred to its rudimentary form: being granted slots to participate in the DFP training. When probed further, however, several other farmers shared that they feel included if the programme is quick to respond to their needs. “[Inclusivity is] being able to call someone when we need help and receiving a response in a timely manner. That’s a huge deal for us… This is what inclusion is,” shared Felipe, 58 (personal interview, 2023). This points to the cruciality of responsiveness in programme delivery.

This construct of inclusivity becomes more notable in the farmers’ assessment of the DFP vis-a-vis Helsper’s SRDE, the results of which are summarized in Table 2. Details are elaborated in the text following the table.

Table 2. Summary of the Digital Farmers Program assessment with farmers and their representatives, based on Helsper’s social relativity of digital exclusion

SRDE concept

Summarized findings

Motivation

High level of motivation, with some exceptions

Barriers and enablers to participation

Barriers: time, unfamiliarity with/fear of technology, privacy issues, lack of digital literacy, poor network coverage, youth’s lack of motivation to engage/help

Enablers: youth participation, provision of smartphones/mobile data, group membership

Cognition

Consultation: little to no consultation

Actual benefit: generally positive, but learning retention is a challenge

Service improvement: limited participation

Representation in governance: non-existent.

Social comparison: generally positive, with DFP-participating farmers feeling better off after programme participation

Affect

Primarily positive for DFP-participating farmers, with non-participants feeling “regret” and “left out”

Note: SRDE: social relativity of digital exclusion.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Motivation

Conversations with farmers participating and not participating in the DFP reveal a relatively high motivation to join, with few exceptions. Learning and increasing digital literacy emerged as the primary motivation for participation, with many farmers exhibiting self-motivation rather than being influenced by external factors. “We want to participate to increase our knowledge, and so we’re able to sell our produce at a better price,” shared Angela, 53 (personal interview, 2023). Sharing knowledge with farmers nationwide and assisting future generations of farmers also arose as key motivators. “Of course, it’s important that we help other [farmers], especially the newer generation so that we can share our farming knowledge. While we are not experts in technology, at least, we are experts in actual farming,” explained Ronald, 52 (personal interview, 2023). A group chat exists on Facebook where all DFP alumni can communicate and share new learnings, and Ronald is one of its active members.

Incentives such as access to smartphones and free mobile data also help to enhance enthusiasm. Several factors, however, temper other farmers’ motivation, the most notable being time constraints and low literacy rates. Roberto, 50, expressed empathy for some of his contemporaries: “[Other farmers] don’t want to be bothered with their livelihoods, and they don’t want to persevere. Probably another factor is their low educational attainment. I think maybe they’re scared of being asked or answering examination questions” (personal interview, 2023). The next section delves deeper into such barriers.

Barriers and enablers to participation

Time emerged as the primary barrier to participation. Most participants share that many of their fellow farmers opt to spend their time farming and consider training programmes (such as the DFP) a waste of time and effort. Unfamiliarity with smartphones is also a limiting factor. Several participants expressed privacy concerns (for instance, being hacked or clicking on links with viruses) and fear of breaking their mobile devices due to uninformed usage. Several participants also pointed to poor network coverage as a major access and participation barrier, especially in the field.

Similarly, lack of motivation on the part of youth to engage in the programme and their limited patience in teaching their older farmer relatives how to use digital tools poses another layer of difficulty. Nory shared her child’s frustration in teaching her how to use digital tools: “Sometimes my daughter would say, ‘I’m busy, Mom,’ or later when she finally lends me her time, ‘Why do you have such poor pick up? I have to instruct you again and again, and you’re so difficult to teach!’” (personal interview, 2023). Felipe shared a similar concern, remarking that he cannot oblige his daughter to teach him as she has other family duties to attend to and can only engage in teaching him minimally.

As much as engaging the youth as infomediaries is a challenge, it also turns into a prominent enabler when done successfully. Many farmers appreciated and admired their younger family members, who seemed naturally adept at using technological tools and social media. The provision of mobile devices and mobile data subsidies also encourages participation. Finally, a critical enabler emerging from the conversations is membership in farmer groups, which enhances bargaining power. As one family farmer noted:

Being a member of farmers’ associations helps in accessing training programmes [like the DFP]. If you’re in a farmers’ group, the government immediately draws their focus on you. … You even get prioritized whenever you experience calamities such as typhoons, or when they give out incentives such as free fertilizers and seedlings (Tina, personal interview, 2023).

This attests to the relevance and influence farmers’ associations have maintained over the years.

Cognition

Consultation. All farmers indicated that there was little to no consultation before programme implementation. “The DFP was already programmed when we were invited,” shared Ronald (personal interview, 2023). Felipe shared the same sentiment, “We were surprised when we were suddenly invited to participate [in the programme],” he quipped (personal interview, 2023). The farmers assumed that their regional director, Maningas, represented them in programme formation.

Actual benefit. Farmers were generally positive about the benefits they gained from programme engagement. All participating farmers emphasized social media marketing as a key training takeaway: “At first, we didn’t know how to use smartphones. They taught us how to use them. Then they taught us how to take pictures and videos, edit, and post them,” shared Kenny, 58 (personal interview, 2023). He added that posting their produce online informs them of prevailing market prices for their crops, based on buyers’ offers. According to Ronald, another added value of social media marketing is facilitating barter – the exchange of goods between farmers. Everything they learned in the programme helps the farmers sell their products faster, added Nory. Other specific learnings farmers mentioned were proper farming practices, land preparation and management, and fertilizer application. YouTube videos also made them aware of modern agricultural practices and machinery abroad.

However, a major and common challenge all farmers noted is learning retention. Belle, Ronald, Felipe and Roberto all mentioned at different times the tendency to forget what they learn. “I didn’t really learn much from using smartphones. … We learned several things, of course, but all of it I already forgot,” Belle lamented (personal interview, 2023). Thus, knowledge gained is swiftly lost without follow-up and refreshers, and the responsibility to retain new knowledge is passed on to the youth. “That’s why I told my daughter, ‘If you learn, you have to study and review well so that the new knowledge remains within the family’,” shared Felipe (personal interview, 2023).

Service improvement. Participation in service improvement is also limited, if not absent. Farmers shared that simple training evaluations are the only existing mechanism to let their voices be heard, and they expressed their desire to be “surveyed and interviewed” in the future. “No one surveys us… and we want that, so the [implementers] know what our feedback is,” Nory said (personal interview, 2023).

Representation in governance. Similarly, a system to represent farmers in decision-making is also non-existent. While they appreciate being represented by the ATI regional office, farmers explicitly expressed their desire to personally be included in the management of the DFP through a designated spokesperson.

Social comparison. Generally, participants feel better off after joining the programme than their non-participating counterparts. Belle expressed her intent to participate in other upcoming DFP training sessions, while Allan, who has not had the opportunity to join the programme, wishes to join future training iterations. All non-participating farmers (Tina, Barbara, Alfonso and Allan) believe their participating counterparts are more digitally literate due to their involvement in the DFP.

Affect

Overall, DFP participants feel positive about the programme. Apart from learning, they also enjoy the social interaction with fellow farmers. Attitudes about technology seemingly shifted as well as a result of their participation in the programme. As noted by one farmer:

As a matter of fact, Sir, I really don’t know how to use smartphones before. … I don’t even care for it. I even said that it’s just a nuisance. But I was wrong. I found that it’s useful for our farming needs, especially in marketing our produce (Felipe, personal interview, 2023).

Participating farmers felt, however, that the programme could benefit from introducing more specialized content and facilitating improved farmer interactions with digital applications. “For example, I want to know how to increase crop yields for my lanzones. … I want to learn more about my own crops,” said Vangie, 58 (personal interview, 2023).[3] There appears to be a clamour for applications catering to individual queries, rather than just general farming concerns.

Conversely, non-participating farmers feel a sense of panghihinayang or regret for being excluded from the programme. “This is a huge thing for us, and we regret not having joined earlier and not being told about it sooner,” expressed Tina (personal interview, 2023). They all conveyed a feeling of being left out due to non-participation.

Summary

The DFP’s inclusionary mechanisms at the grassroots level require serious reconsideration. From the perspective of its beneficiaries and using Helsper’s SRDE as an analytical lens, the DFP has a long way to go in fostering inclusion. While high levels of interest and motivation keep the programme in demand, several systemic roadblocks continue to hinder rural smallholder farmers’ full access and participation. Lack of time, fear of technology, lack of digital literacy, and poor network coverage continue to be significant barriers. Meanwhile, involvement through consultation, governance representation, and service evaluation proves to be very limited. While benefits are realized and participants’ feelings about the programme remain largely positive, learning retention is a serious issue that needs to be resolved. To remedy this, the potential of youth as infomediaries needs maximization. Meso-level factors in increasing participation (such as fellow farmers serving as organic “influencers’’ in adoption and involvement) could be more effectively tapped into.

6. Discussion

The study’s findings build on existing theories and concepts concerning inclusive innovation, digital exclusion and communication for development. Schillo and Robinsons’ conception of the four dimensions of inclusive innovation (2017), for instance, provides concrete minimum requirements for facilitating inclusion within any initiative: considerations of people (who), activities (what), outcomes (why), and governance (how). Although this proposition is useful for analysing inclusive innovation, it was anchored on the experiences of developed countries. Application in developing countries such as the Philippines requires supplementation; particularly, considerations of scale (where) and timeframe (when).

Considerations of scale (where) can be defined as a thorough cogitation of the scope of service implementation – whether local, provincial, regional or national, among other things. Carefully deciding on an intervention’s scale based on its characteristics (such as accessibility among local vs rural populations and target audience’s readiness level) and intention (including, for widespread use or select populations only; whether priority is placed on quantity, quality or depth of usage) is pivotal to ensuring inclusive outcomes. For instance, results of the DFP assessment show that designing for universal applicability – at the expense of being driven by local demand – may facilitate more exclusion than inclusion. Timeframe (when), on the other hand, relates to the timing of introducing an innovation. Specific locales may be deemed unready for introducing a particular innovation (for example, due to the absence of an enabling environment). Conversely, innovations are sometimes introduced too late or at the cusp of major political shifts that render them irrelevant or unsustainable. The rapidly changing nature of technology amid swift governance turnovers – as highlighted in the political–institutional map and the DFP assessment – necessitates careful planning on when or whether to implement.

Equally, the study provides empirical evidence of the validity of Helsper’s argument regarding the significance of meso-level factors in influencing digital inclusion. Helsper’s (2016) SRDE underscores the social contextuality and fluidity permeating individual decisions to adopt a certain digital innovation (Howarth et al., 2013) and thus argues that an individual’s usual “referents” (Folger, 1987) heavily influence their capacity and motivation to hurdle barriers and participate in technology. One key finding from the DFP case study is that farmers believe other farmers. Farmers who quickly adopt technology serve as comparators and thus play a fundamental role in influencing fellow farmers’ motivation to want to be included. The power of this social influence can be better harnessed in designing future programmes.

Helsper’s SRDE complements earlier scholars of the digital divide, such as van Dijk (2005; 2013), who focused on individual and structural barriers to digital access. Supporting what digital-divide scholars describe as the digital vicious cycle (Warren, 2007), the study reaffirms that low basic literacy correlates with low motivation to participate in digital innovation and, consequently, low digital literacy. In the case of the DFP, farmers’ fear of technology stems from low educational attainment and low self-confidence regarding their intellectual aptitude. Thus, basic literacy becomes a prerequisite for fully embracing the digital turn, making access to basic education more crucial than ever.

The study likewise presents some valuable considerations for the current conceptualization of FAO’s (2022) RCS framework. In Stilgoe et al.’s (2013) envisioning of a framework for responsible innovation, one key component is an intervention’s responsiveness, defined as an intervention’s flexibility in allowing for programme recalibration based on incoming input and changing priorities and realities. This quality is a necessary addition to RCS. Apart from this type of programme malleability, inclusive digital agri-extension services should equally respond in a timely manner. Services and programmes should be primed to amend visions, shift trajectories, or even halt operations if the intervention is no longer apt and responsive to contemporary needs and demands.

Finally, the study has positioned the necessity of youth participation in any digital agricultural undertaking at the forefront. Youth involvement is crucial for at least two reasons: 1) their role as “infomediaries” (see Manalo, 2013) and 2) their role as the future of farming. Youth engagement allows older farmers to receive guidance and moral encouragement in utilizing digital tools, while ensuring that future farmers are digitally literate and attuned to the complexities of agricultural digitalization. Thus, the study findings indicate that youth orientation should be added as an RCS principle.

This examination of inclusivity in digital agri-extension services suggests that inclusion should be embedded in the whole service delivery system, rather than just within one particular programme. Holistic inclusion is best achieved when all the programmes within the service package work together in a complementary manner, with the package being assessed as a whole rather than assessing the programmes individually. Paramount to this realization is the acceptance that agricultural digitalization is not a panacea; it should be propelled in parallel with more traditional approaches to agri-extension services delivery, working towards inclusion for all.

7. Conclusion

The quest for digital agri-extension inclusion for smallholder farmers in the Philippines is hampered by a number of contradictions. On the one hand, the policy and institutional architecture propel the ideals of inclusive agriculture. On the other hand, service implementation is persistently constrained by bureaucratic traditions, an ever-shifting regime agenda, and numerous sociotechnological barriers. In the case of the DFP, a robust potential for upscaling and desirable intentions for inclusion are evident. Enthusiasm and commitment are palpable among both implementers and participants. However, these positive elements face the inescapable reality of pursuing inclusive innovation in a developing country where inequality is systemic and deeply rooted. Thus, despite its potential, only very few aspects of inclusivity are addressed by the DFP. Poverty, poor basic education, and culturally ingrained tolerance for inequity and injustices are only some of the wicked problems that require grand interventions for agricultural digital innovation to make a dent in the country’s realm of inclusion.

Overall, decision-makers and implementers’ mechanisms to enable inclusion within the DFP prove lacking when assessed against RCS as a conceptual framework. While the right to information seems thoroughly acknowledged, qualities of demand and local context-drivenness remain only partially fulfilled. Gender equitability is completely overlooked in favour of youth orientation. Social inclusion in the DFP challenges the Philippines’ broader strategic trajectory in policymaking towards enhanced equity. Apart from youth orientation, study findings suggest that programme responsiveness is another feature that merits inclusion in the RCS.

Meanwhile, farmers’ perspectives divulge a tendency for the DFP to be exclusionary. While the DFP benefits from farmers’ inherent interest and motivation, lack of time, technological aversion, poor digital skills and poor network connection limit their full programme appreciation. Regarding inclusion mechanisms – consultation, representation in governance and participation in service evaluation are almost non-existent. In addition to addressing structural and individual access barriers, gaps could be filled by maximizing the potential of youth as “ infomediaries” and harnessing community-level relationships to drive further programme interest and engagement.

For further research, a sociomaterial view of agri-extension service delivery could be a fundamental contribution to the field – an exploration of the entanglements and assemblages built among human and non-human actors within their complex, dynamic network of interactions situated in the service-delivery network. Similar to Birke and Knierim’s (2020) investigation of agricultural knowledge centres in Ethiopia using an actor-network theory approach, the DFP, as an initiative, could also benefit from a Latourian analytical perspective on digital inclusion. This is a worthwhile undertaking, as it forefronts the role of “technology in action” in facilitating inclusion rather than focusing on sectoral constructs of inclusivity (for instance, perspectives of farmers vs decision-makers). While the study had to prioritize self-assessments of inclusion, future research can endeavour to interrogate inclusivity as a byproduct of tools and their inseparability with both proponents and users, placing the locus of interest on the doing rather than the doer (Latour, 1991; Crawford, 2004).

References

Aker, J.C. 2011. Dial ‘A’ for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agric. Econ., 42(6): 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00545.x

Alampay, E.A. 2006. Analysing socio-demographic differences in the access and use of ICTs in The Philippines using the capability approach. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries., 27. doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00182.x

Balit, S. & Acunzo, M. 2019. A Changing World: FAO Efforts in Communication for Rural Development. In: J. Servaes (ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change. Singapore, Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7035-8_29-1

Baumüller, H. 2018. The little we know: An exploratory literature review on the utility of mobile phone-enabled services for smallholder farmers. J. Int. Dev., 30 (1): 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3314

Becker, H.S. 1970. Sociological work: Method and substance. Chicago, USA, Aldine Publishing Company.

Berrigan, F. 1979. Community communications: the role of community media in development. Paris, UNESCO.

Birke, F.M. & Knierim, A. 2020. ICT for agriculture extension: actor network theory for understanding the establishment of agricultural knowledge centers in South Wollo, Ethiopia. Inf. Technol. Dev., 26(3): 591–606. doi:10.1080/02681102.2020.1727

Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information. Cleveland, USA, Sage Publications.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol., 3(2): 77-101. ISSN 1478-0887

Burchardt, T. 2005. Are one man’s rags another man’s riches? Identifying adaptive expectations using panel data. Soc. Indic. Res., 74(1): 57–102. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-6519-y

Campbell, A. 1992. Taking the long view in tough times: Landcare in Australia. Third Annual Report of the National Landcare Facilitator. Canberra, National Soil Conservation Program.

Crawford, C. 2004. Actor-network theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. In G. Ritzer (ed.), Encyclopaedia of social theory. California, USA, Sage Publications.

Crosby, F. 1976. Model of egotistical relative deprivation. Psychol. Rev., 83(2): 85–113. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85

Dagron, A.G. 2001. Making Waves: Stories of Participatory Communication for Social Change. New York, USA, The Rockefeller Foundation. https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/Gumucio-2001-Making.pdf

Deichmann, U., Goyal, A. & Mishra, D. 2016. Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries? Agric. Econ., 47(S1): 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12300

dela Peña Bandalaria, M. 2007. Impact of ICTs on open and distance learning in a developing country setting: The Philippine experience. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn., 8(1): 1–15.

Department of Agriculture. 2021. Philippine Action Plan for Family Farming 2019-2028. https://ati2.da.gov.ph/ati-main/content/sites/default/files/2022-03/pub-2.pdf

Driessen, H. & Jansen, W. 2013. The hard work of small talk in ethnographic fieldwork. J. Anthropol. Res., 69(2): 249–263. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24393899

Flor, A.G. 2001. ICT and poverty: The indisputable link. In: SEARCA. Paper for the Third Asian Development Forum on Regional Economic Cooperation in Asia and the Pacific organized by the Asian Development Bank (pp. 11–14). Bangkok, ADB and UNESCAP.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1994. Communication: a key to human development. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/t1815e/t1815e01.htm

FAO. 2022. UNDFF Forum on Inclusive Rural Communication Services for Family Farming. Rome.

Folger, R. 1987. Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives. Hillsdale, USA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haddon, L. 2011. The contemporary Internet: National and cross-national European studies. Oxford, UK, Peter Lang.

Heeks, R. & Stanforth, C. 2015. Technological change in developing countries: Opening the black box of process using actor–network theory. Dev. Stud. Res., 2(1): 33–50.

Helsper, E.J. 2017. The Social Relativity of Digital Exclusion: Applying Relative Deprivation Theory to Digital Inequalities: The Social Relativity of Digital Exclusion. Commun. Theory, 27(3): 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12110

Hoffecker, E. 2021. Understanding inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems: A middle-range conceptual model. World Dev., 140: 105382.

Howarth, C., Campbell, C., Cornish, F., Franks, B., Garcia-Lorenzo, L., Gillespie, A., Tennant, C. et al. 2013. Insights from societal psychology: The contextual politics of change. J. Soc. Political Psychol., 1(1): 364–384. doi:10.5964/jspp.v1i1.64

Klerkx, L. & Rose, D. 2020. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Glob. Food Secur., 24: 100347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347

Latour, B. 1991. Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl): 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03350.x):103–132

Maguire, M. & Delahunt, B. 2017. Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9: 3.

Manalo IV, J.A. 2013. Mobilising upland Filipino youth to serve as infomediaries. info, 15(5): 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-2013-0030

Manalo IV, J.A. & van de Fliert, E. 2011. Hypothesizing ICT4D in Philippine agriculture: Deriving from trends, setting directions. Asian J. Agric. Dev., 8(2): 1.

Maxwell, J.A. 2012. A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage.

Namyenya, A., Daum, T., Rwamigisa, P.B. & Birner, R. 2021. E-diary: a digital tool for strengthening accountability in agricultural extension. Inf. Technol. Dev., 28(2): 3–345.

Norris, P. 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Ona, S.E., Ulit, E. & Hanna, N.K. 2012. The Philippines: The quest for genuine e-development. In: Hanna N., Knight P. (eds). National strategies to harness information technology. New York, USA, Springer.

Panganiban, G. 2019. E-governance in agriculture: digital tools enabling Filipino farmers. J. Asian Public Policy, 12(1): 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2018.1499479

Pawson, R. 2013. The science of evaluation: A realist manifesto. Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage.

Pigford, A., Hickey, G.M. & Klerkx, L. 2018. Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agric. Syst., 164: 116–121.

Ragnedda, M. & Muschert, G.W., eds. 2013. The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. Oxfordshire, UK, Routledge.

Röling, N. & van de Fliert, E. 1994. Transforming extension for sustainable agriculture: The case of integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia. Agric. Hum. Values, 11: 96–108.

Rose, D.C., Morris, C., Lobley, M., Winter, M., Sutherland, W.J. & Dicks, L.V. 2018. Exploring the spatialities of technological and user re-scripting: the case of decision support tools in UK agriculture. Geoforum, 89: 11–18.

Rotz, S., Gravely, E., Mosby, I., Duncan, E., Finnis, E., Horgan, M., LeBlanc, J. et al. 2019. Automated pastures and the digital divide: How agricultural technologies are shaping labour and rural communities. J. Rural Stud., 68: 112–122.

Saldaña, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage Publications Ltd.

Schillo, R.S., & Robinson, R.M. 2017. Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries: The Who, What, Why, and How. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev., 7(7).

Schlaile, M., Urmetzer, S., Blok, V., Andersen, A., Timmermans, J., Mueller, M., Fagerberg, J. et al. 2017. Innovation systems for transformations towards sustainability? Taking the normative dimension seriously. Sustainability, 9: 2253.

Scriven, M. 1974. Maximizing the power of causal investigations: The modus operandi method. In W. J. Popham (ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications (pp. 68– 84). Berkeley, USA, McCutchan Publishing.

Siar, S.V. 2005. E-governance at the local government level in the Philippines: An assessment of city government websites*. Philippine Journal of Development, 32(2): 135.

Steinke, J., Ortiz-Crespo, B., van Etten, J. & Müller, A. 2022. Participatory design of digital innovation in agricultural research-for-development: Insights from practice. Agric. Syst., 195: 103313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103313

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy, 42(9): 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Swartz, S. 2011. ‘Going deep’ and ‘giving back’: strategies for exceeding ethical expectations when researching amongst vulnerable youth. Qual. Res., 11(1): 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110385885

The Communication Initiative, FAO & the World Bank. 2007. World Congress on Communication for Development: Lessons, Challenges, and the Way Forward. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6842

Tipton, F.B. 2002. Bridging the Digital Divide in Southeast Asia: Pilot Agencies and Policy Implementation in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 19(1): 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1355/AE19-1F

Trinidad, A. 2002. An initial assessment of the Philippines preparedness for E-Learning. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 17: 2.

United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York, USA.

van Dijk, J. 2005. The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. London, Sage.

van Dijk, J. 2013. A theory of the digital divide. In: Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G.W. (eds.). The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. Oxfordshire, Routledge.

Warren, M. 2007. The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommun. Policy, 31(6–7): 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2007.04.001

Woodhill, J., Wilson, A. & McKenzie, J. 1992. Land conservation and social change: extension to community development. A necessary shift in thinking. Paper presented at the 7th International Soil Conservation Conference, Sydney, Australia, 27-30 September 1992.

[1] CALABARZON stands for Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon – the provinces that comprise the region.

[2] RCTs: regional training centres

[3] Lanzones (Lansium domesticum) is a tropical fruit found mostly in Southeast Asia.

Chapter 7

ICT platforms as value-chain coordinators for smallholders in Uganda

Authors:

Connetie Ayesiga

Independent agricultural value chain specialist/researcher
Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Esther Ronner

Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Paul T. M. Ingenbleek

Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

1. Introduction

The demand for food is increasing globally due to population growth, growing incomes, and rapid urbanization (FAO, 2017; Giller et al., 2021). At present, 70 to 80 percent of the world’s food is produced by smallholders, who are constrained by factors such as reliance on rainfed subsistence agriculture, declining soil fertility (World Bank, 2017) and decreasing farm size (Lowder, Sánchez and Bertini, 2021). While a number of agricultural technologies, including improved seed varieties, fertilizer and farm practices, could increase family farmers’ productivity and income, the uptake of such technologies has generally remained low (Macours, 2019; Sheahan and Barrett, 2017).

Family farmers’ reluctance to invest in agricultural input technologies is due to various factors such as limited access to input, output and financial markets; high transaction costs; risks and uncertainty (Simtowe et al., 2019). These constraints to technology adoption have been attributed, in part, to market information asymmetry. In fact, several studies have indicated that access to information can reduce market failure, risk and uncertainty (Abdul and Abdulai, 2022; Deichmann, Goyal and Mishra, 2016; Mohammed and Abdulai, 2022; Van Campenhout, 2021).

Following the global trend, by 2050, the demand for food in Africa will double due to population growth, increasing incomes and rapid urbanization (FAO, 2017; Giller et al., 2021), and it will be necessary for smallholder farmers to adopt productivity-enhancing technologies to meet the growing demand. In light of this, the proliferation of information and communications technology (ICT) platforms in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Uganda, that improve access to agricultural information and help to overcome the information asymmetry problem among family farmers, is being welcomed as a major technological and social innovation (Aker and Mbiti, 2010; Foster and Graham, 2017).

An ICT platform is a mobile or web-based platform which integrates multiple interfaces and applications for users (Bonina Carla et al., 2021), including farmers and other actors within the value-chain. Such platforms enable the provision of agricultural information at low cost and in real time, in order to correct market failures and reduce transaction costs, risks and uncertainties (Aker, Ghosh and Burrell, 2016; Ezeomah and Duncombe, 2019; Orr, 2018). This enhances family farmers’ access to and use of agricultural inputs needed to increase productivity (McGuire and Sperling, 2016; Shiferaw et al., 2015).

Despite having optimistic expectations, researchers disagree on how ICT platforms can fulfil their promise as instruments for change. This disagreement raises two questions for the research field. The first concerns which markets should be prioritized by ICT platforms: input markets, output markets or both. Some authors argue that ICT investments could start with input information to push the use of inputs (Fabregas et al., undated; Gupta, Ponticelli and Tesei, 2020; Maredia et al., 2018; Van Campenhout, 2021), while others suggest that output-market information creates transparency on the incentives for farmers to “pull” investments in inputs (Aker and Fafchamps, 2015; Aker, Ghosh and Burrell, 2016; Courtois and Subervie, 2015; Nakasone, Torero and Minten, 2014). The second question concerns whether the provision of market information alone is sufficient to ensure increased uptake of inputs through input and output linkages as a “pull” and “push” function, especially within the African context where market players (output buyers and input providers) may be few and, in some cases, non-existent (Dorward et al., 2009; Ingenbleek, Tessema and van Trijp, 2013). While many studies rely on information provision as the main intervention of an ICT platform (Ayim et al., 2022), others have started to advocate for ICT platforms to coordinate linkages across input and output markets (Chavas and Nauges, 20220; Ezeomah and Duncombe, 2019).

Proponents of the different views rely primarily on theoretical arguments and impact studies. Within this debate, the voices of the organizations behind ICT platforms concerning the lessons they have learned in their markets and the directions they will take based on these insights are largely absent. For this reason, the current study focuses on ICT platforms as the object of investigation. By exploring the motivations and actions of ICT platforms, the study aims to reconcile the different views on the two dimensions within which ICT platforms can operate: the market dimension (input vs output markets) and the intervention dimension (information provision vs coordination). Based on these two dimensions, four types of ICT platforms are identified (see Table 1), which are compared systematically in a qualitative case study intended to address three research questions: 1) How do the four types of ICT platforms help to improve the uptake of agricultural input technologies by family farmers? 2) What strategies do the different types of ICT platforms use to improve family farmers’ uptake of agricultural input technologies? 3) In which direction are these strategies developing?

Table 1. Typology of information and communication technology platforms based on the market and intervention dimensions

Main focus of interventions by ICT platforms:

Main focus of ICT platforms in the smallholder-based value-chain:

Input markets

Output markets

Information

Input-information provision

Output-information provision

Coordination

Input-market coordination

Output-market coordination

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

By answering these questions, this study contributes insight into the strategies ICT platforms can use to increase the uptake of productive inputs by family farmers. That is, the study provides empirical insight into the different pathways – the alternative steps and actions towards different strategic directions (Werners et al., 2021) – of the different ICT platforms.

The study and its results are described in this chapter as follows: Section 2 reviews the existing literature on ICT platforms for smallholders and introduces the theoretical perspective adopted in the study. Section 3, Methodology, indicates how four cases were selected and examined for systematic comparison to answer the research questions. Section 4 reports the most important insights from these cases, followed by discussion and implications (Section 5) and conclusions (Section 6).

2. Literature review

Uptake of new technologies by smallholders

ICT platforms can help eliminate barriers that smallholders encounter in the uptake of agricultural input technologies (Cole and Fernando, 2021; Krone and Dannenberg, 2018; Maredia et al., 2018; Steinke et al., 2021). Within this context, uptake – or adoption (Feder, Just and Bezemer, 1985) – refers to a decision made by a smallholder to substitute existing techniques, artefacts and practices with newer and better ones (Mica, 2016). Existing research on the uptake of technologies by smallholders acknowledges that uptake is not a straightforward yes/no decision (given the possibility of adopting only some parts of an available technology) and that adoption decisions are subject to change (Glover, Sumberg and Anderson, 2016). As suggested by Glover et al. (2019), adoption can be regarded as an outcome of interrelated sociotechnical networks (such as farmers, input and output markets, and providers of support services) that can eliminate barriers, such as poor extension services, poor infrastructure, limited credit access and ineffective policy frameworks (Adekambi, Ingenbleek and van Trijp, 2015; Zhang, Mishra and Hirsch, 2021). In many cases, the value-chain actors needed to supply inputs to small farmers or to buy their produce are few or non-existent, and the distances between farmers and other actors are often large (Ingenbleek, Tessema and van Trijp, 2013). One possible solution is for ICT platforms to position themselves to eliminate such barriers by connecting to and intervening in the sociotechnical barriers that hinder the adoption of technology.

Theoretical approach

FAO’s rural communication services framework

Rural communication services (RCS) is a working concept that seeks to frame a wide range of processes, activities, media applications and institutional arrangements that respond sustainably and inclusively to rural populations’ communication needs (FAO, 2014). As defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RCS refers to:

Sustained two-way processes, delivered regularly to the rural population to enhance rural livelihoods by facilitating equitable access to knowledge and information; enabling social inclusion in decision-making; and building stronger links between rural institutions and local communities (FAO, 2014, p. 2).

Within this framework, the role of ICT platforms as instruments that deliver and sustain communication services and processes for family farmers and other value-chain actors is an important aspect that cannot be ignored. This is because ICT platforms can respond to the needs of family farmers, for instance in terms of information and coordination, enabling them to improve their production and productivity. Relevant information delivered by ICT platforms can improve farmers’ awareness and knowledge of agricultural inputs, increase market transparency and enhance the functioning of input and output markets (Aker and Ksoll, 2016; Chavas and Nauges, 2020).

Given that one of the guiding principles of RCS is to respond to the needs of rural populations in a sustained and inclusive manner, the study applies this perspective to investigate the strategies used by ICT platforms to enhance farmers’ uptake of agricultural inputs. These strategies include, for instance, information provision and coordination. The analysis of the strategies draws on four concepts expounded in the network/ecosystems approach guiding the research (Yin, 2018).

The first concept is that by developing processes that respond to the value-chain actors’ needs (as Oparaocha [2016] demonstrated), ICT platforms carve out their own niches within existing networks. They forge connections with specific actors by establishing direct links, serving as intermediaries to connect others, or creating indirect links. As such, they must decide how to position themselves within the market system by establishing links to other actors within the network to achieve their objectives.

Second, as Vargo and Lusch (2017) advocate, studies that view networks as service systems emphasize that networks exist for actors to provide services to one another. Within the domain of ICT platforms for RCS, these services typically include the provision of information, as well as additional offerings, including awareness campaigns for family farmers on behalf of companies in the value-chain, researcher questionnaires, input and demand aggregation, microloans, contracts for the purchase and delivery of farm inputs, crop insurance and contracts with buyers (Parker, Van Alstyne and Choudary, 2016).

Third, ICT platforms obtain the resources underlying their services (such as knowledge and skills) from various actors within the value-chain. ICT platforms typically co-create value by obtaining information from these actors and making it of value to others (Gawer, 2020; Stallkamp and Schotter, 2021). The co-creation of value involves joint activities undertaken by parties engaged in direct interactions to contribute to the value that emerges for one or both parties (Akaka and Parry, 2019; Lember, Brandsen and Tõnurist, 2019; Wajid et al., 2019). In this regard, value is seen as “value-in-use” (Vargo and Lusch, 2016) – the significance of the service provided for the actor receiving it, rather than in terms of “exchange value” (that is, price). For instance, the value of fertilizer is the improved productivity of a crop, as experienced by the farmer, which is the result of co-creation by a fertilizer company that produced and transported the material, an agrodealer who displayed it in their store, an ICT platform that notified the farmer that the fertilizer was available and gave directions for its application, and the farmer who applied it on the farm.

Fourth, it is important to note that these strategies may change over time, as ICT platforms may need to be adjusted to achieve future success (Mirabeau and Maguire, 2014). The positions of ICT platforms within the market system, their services to other actors and their activities in the co-creation of value are crucial to increasing the uptake of input technologies by farmers. However, these strategies are not fixed as market systems are dynamic and subject to change based on the needs and preferences of actors and competitive forces (Jovanovic, Sjödin and Parida, 2022; Layton, 2015, 2019). The co-creation of value and the provision of services also evolve as ICT platforms learn about the system structure and the changing needs of actors within the system, and as they establish new connections, reinforce existing relationships, abandon them, engage in new co-creation activities, provide additional services and enhance their own skills and resources (Giesler and Fischer, 2017; Layton, 2011). Consequently, the strategies employed by ICT platforms are likely to be adaptive and subject to change over time.

3. Methodology

Research design and case selection

A purposive approach was applied in the study to select fitting cases for the four types of ICT platforms (Miles and Huberman, 1994), as indicated in Table 1. First, a desk search was conducted to develop a long list of family farmer-based ICT platforms in Uganda. (The Ugandan context provides the most dynamic ICT platform community in sub-Saharan Africa, with more than 38 ICT platforms [GSMA, 2020], making Uganda an excellent context for identifying organizations fitting the ICT platform archetypes addressed in the study.) Policy documents and reports from the Ugandan government and development organizations were also consulted to identify platforms for the long list.

Second, the number of platforms on the list was reduced by restricting the search to platforms that had been in operation for at least two years, that covered at least 2 000 family farmers and at least one full region of the country, that targeted more than one major crop grown in the region and that used mobile-based or web-based technology. Third, the remaining platforms were assigned to one of the four cells in Table 1 and ranked in order of fit, according to the two dimensions of the table. The four highest-ranked platforms in the lists were then invited to participate in the study. All four agreed (see Table 2 for descriptions of the four platforms). In a validity check, two experts on digital platforms for agriculture in Uganda (one from a research institution and one from a non-governmental organization) confirmed the fit of these choices within the underlying dimensions.

Table 2. Selection criteria for and case descriptions of information and communication technology platforms in Uganda

Input-information provider

Output-information provider

Input-market coordinator

Output-market coordinator

Name of the platform

M-Omulimisa

Farmgain Africa

Ezy Agric

Kudu

Technology used

ICT platform accessible via SMS and feature phone

ICT platform accessible via the internet and email

ICT platform accessible via the internet and smartphone (app-based)

ICT platform accessible via SMS and feature phone

Focus region

Northern region

All regions

Central and eastern regions

Eastern region

Target crops

Soybeans, maize, sunflowers, sorghum

All major crops grown in the regions

Maize, beans, potatoes, groundnuts

Maize, beans, soybeans, sesame, groundnuts, rice, sorghum etc.

Number of beneficiaries

20 000 farmers registered

2 000 subscriptions

80 000 farmers registered

3 000 farmers registered

Starting year

2014

2007

2015

2017

Core services

Provides agronomic and weather information, extension advisory services and profiles of input suppliers

Disseminates commodity prices on more than 23 agricultural commodities

Provides farmers with access to production inputs and support services

Provides agronomy and weather information

Links produce sellers (farmers) to buyers

Other services

Agro-insurance Input microloans

Value-chain analysis

Farmer profiling

Provides commodity prices

Business model

Village agent model

Market scouts

Village agent model

Village agent model

Language used

Local languages of choice

English

English

English

Frequency

On-demand

Weekly

On-demand

On-demand

Fees

Free access

Annual subscription

Access requires internet Orders paid through mobile money wallet

SMS costs for registration and posting offers

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Data collection

Data were collected through interviews, observations and desk research. Primary data was collected in two steps. The first step involved four key-informant interviews with managers from the four platforms, who were typically responsible for general management decisions, operations, organizational structures and strategizing. Their job titles included Director and Senior Market Specialist (Table 3). To guide the interviews, an interview guide was prepared based on case-study concepts derived from the theoretical background and Yin’s (2013) approach to interviewing (see Table 3). The interview guide addressed approaches that the ICT platforms adopted to enhance farmers’ uptake of agricultural input technologies and their strategies in terms of services provided, network structures, actor roles in the co-creation of value and expected strategic changes. Managers were asked about the initial situation when the platform was first established and the current situation, including the reasons for any changes. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. After the first round of interviews, the larger actor networks of the platforms were mapped. This mapping was used to approach different actors, including village agents, traders, non-governmental organization (NGO) field officers and family farmers (see Table 4 for the full list of informants).

In the second step, representatives from the actor network of each case were purposively selected based on their experience with the platforms, gender diversity (to obtain insights from both genders) and knowledge about the platform’s operations. Twenty-six key-informant interviews were conducted across the four cases, with six respondents from each of the first three cases and four respondents from the fourth case. The interview guide for this second round of interviews included questions on the respondents’ experiences with the ICT platforms, services they received, benefits and impact on their use of inputs (see Table 3 for sample questions). Two categories of input technologies were explored to generate insight into input use. First, the study explored inputs for improved seed varieties, fertilizers and other agrochemicals (such as herbicides or pesticides). Given that such inputs often require different management practices, the study also examined the use of better farm practices as a second category of input technologies.

When needed, people knowledgeable about the specific context of the cases and who could speak the local language were used as translators (Ingenbleek, Tessema and van Trijp, 2013). Following Eisenhardt (1989), all interviews were recorded after obtaining consent from the respondents. To triangulate the information obtained from the responses gathered from the primary source of information, information was collected from field observations and through desk research from secondary sources, including the websites and annual reports of the ICT platforms in the case studies. These sources were used to mitigate the risk of informant bias, control subjective and individual judgements, and enhance the validity of the findings (Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki, 2009).

Table 3. Case-study concepts used with key informants and smallholder farmers

Study concepts

Example questions

Market system structure

What type of market actors or other stakeholders do you work with in the delivery of services you provide? What is your reason for working with them?
How are the market actors aligned with each other?
How do the services improve the alignment between market actors?

Services provided by ICT platforms

What services do you offer to the various actors with whom you work? Why these services?
How are they expected to contribute to farmers’ uptake of agricultural input technologies?

Value co-creation

What mutual benefits do actors realize from being connected to the platform?
How does the platform facilitate problem solving among the various actors?
How does the platform involve users in the delivery of services?

Uptake of agricultural input technologies

Which inputs or practices accessed through the platform have you tried on your own farm, and why? Which inputs or practices are you currently using on your farm, and why?

Expected institutionalization changes / strategic changes

What challenges do you currently face in providing services to different actors?
In what ways would you solve those challenges?
How do you see your strategy changing about the solutions mentioned?

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Table 4. Brief descriptions of key informants interviewed

Cases

Study district(s)

Description of key informants interviewed

Location

Gender

Case 1: Input-information provider M-Omulimisa

Oyam and Lira

Director 1-1

Kampala

Male

Village Agent 1-1

Oyam

Male

Village Agent 1-2

Lira

Male

Farmer 1-1

Oyam

Male

Farmer 1-2

Oyam

Female

Farmer 1-3

Lira

Male

Farmer 1-4

Lira

Female

Case 2: Input-market coordinator Ezy Agric app

Namutumba and Mukono

Director 2-1

Ezy Agric

Male

Farmer 2-1

Namutumba

Female

Farmer 2-2

Namutumba

Male

Farmer 2-3

Mukono

Male

Farmer 2-4

Mukono

Female

Village Agent 2-1

Mukono

Male

Village Agent 2-2/ Agrodealer

Namutumba

Female

Case 3: Output-information provider Farmgain Africa

Soroti, Serere and Kampala

Senior Market Specialist 3-1

Kampala

Male

Farmer 3-1 (Marketing Chair)

Serere

Male

Farmer 3-2 (Cooperative Chair)

Serere

Female

Farmer 3-3

Soroti

Female

Field Officer 3-1 (NGO)

Soroti

Male

Case 4: Output-market coordinator facilitator Kudu platform

Iganga, Butaleja and Kaliro

Director 4-1

Kampala

Male

Farmer 4-1

Butaleja

Male

Farmer 4-2

Butaleja

Female

Farmer 4-3

Iganga

Male

Farmer 4-4

Kaliro

Female

Village Agent 4-1

Butaleja

Male

Trader 4-1

Kaliwro

Male

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Data analysis

Data from all key-informant interviews were transcribed verbatim, and personal identifiers (such as names) were removed from the transcripts to protect the confidentiality of the participants. Several steps were taken to analyse the transcripts. The first step involved thoroughly reading and rereading the transcripts and other materials to become familiarized with the dataset. Each case was then analysed separately, following Eisenhardt’s (1989) within-case data-analysis procedure, using the Atlas.ti software (Woods et al., 2016).

To understand how ICT platforms led to improved uptake of agricultural input technologies by family farmers, the strategies used by these ICT platforms were explored based on the case-study concepts from the first round of coding: market-system positioning, services provided and value co-creation activities. This led to the following second-level codes, which were later developed into two subsecond-level codes: initial (at the start of the platform) and current. For each subsecond-order theme, codes were derived across the strategies used: market-system positioning, services provided and value co-creation services (see Figure 1 for the coding structure). To obtain insight into how the strategies in each case influenced family farmers’ uptake of agricultural input technologies, initial codes concerning uptake (such as “‘weed twice”, “‘now do row planting”, “use NPK”, “use foliar fertilisers” and ‘”use improved seed”) were derived, which were then grouped together to form broader theme categories (see the coding structure in Figure 1).

Data were then explored on the future strategic outlook of ICT platforms and their expected strategic changes (see the coding structure for the codes derived). This generated insight into challenges faced by ICT platforms and suggested solutions leading to strategic changes. Following Yin (2003), a cross-case analysis was then conducted to identify, compare and discuss cross-case patterns in the strategies used, the uptake of inputs by family farmers and expected institutionalization changes of RCS captured as expected strategic changes.

Figure 1. Coding structure

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

4. Results

This section presents the results for each case in order of complexity (in terms of the categories of actors with which the platforms interact), from the least to the most complex case. For each case, strategies (market-system positioning, services provided and value co-creation activities) are presented, followed by insights into how the strategies of the ICT platforms have led to the uptake of input technologies and their expected strategic changes in the future.

Output-market information provider (Farmgain Africa)

Founded in 2007 by individual agricultural experts as a for-profit private agribusiness support organization, Farmgain Africa offers agribusiness-related services to actors in agricultural value-chains. Through a national market information platform, the organization explicitly positions itself between farmers and output-market buyers (Figure 2). The national market information platform is intended to create transparency in output-market prices and reduce transaction costs related to market search, thereby increasing family farmers’ access to produce markets and incomes to support investment decisions. As such, Farmgain Africa’s philosophy revolves around creating transparency within output markets for family farmers.

Figure 2. Market positioning of Farmgain Africa

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

The platform does not provide information to family farmers directly but works through a number of actors (such as NGOs, radio stations and government departments) who subscribe to the platform and share the information with the farming communities with whom they work (Figure 2). To collect output-market information, the platform relies on produce dealers from the respective markets, referred to as “market scouts”.

The main service that Farmgain provides is the dissemination of commodity-price information for the major crops grown and sold to markets across the country. This information is shared with over 2 000 subscribing organizations in the form of reports, which the organizations then share with the farmers. The farmers thus depend on the subscribing organizations for access to market information. In addition, the platform uses the market information it collects to offer agribusiness support services (such as value-chain analyses and business-plan development) for its subscribers and other non-subscribing organizations.

Results from the interviews with farmers and NGOs indicate that Farmgain co-creates value for its network of value-chain actors through commodity prices in two ways. First, the use of produce dealers as data collectors ensures the collection of quality data that will be widely trusted by the subscribers while also providing an opportunity for produce dealers to earn additional income. As noted by Field officer 3-1, “...we pay for the information because we trust the mechanism used by the platform to collect it” (personal communication, 2019). Engaging produce dealers who also deal in some or all the commodities covered by the platform thus helps ensure the confidence of the users regarding the quality of the data delivered by the platform. As the Senior Market Specialist noted, “We use people who are knowledgeable about the market and have been in that market for at least five years” (personal communication, 2019).

Second, using NGOs (such as Socadido) as intermediaries amplifies the platform’s coverage, helping many family farmers make informed decisions concerning marketing and production. In addition, subscribing organizations use the information to support the agricultural interventions they extend to family farmers based on crops for which there is high demand in the market. According to Field Officer 3-1, who was working for an NGO, “...the platform shares market trends that help us design interventions for farmers” (personal communication, 2019).

Regarding input uptake, the interviews with family farmers revealed that output-market information accessed through subscribing organizations increased their awareness of crops and varieties demanded by the market and created transparency concerning expected prices. Transparency in produce prices influenced farmers to switch to improved seeds or varieties that were in high demand. As Farmer 3-3 noted, “We find ourselves using improved varieties because the information we get is that such a variety fetches a higher price on the market” (personal communication, 2019). Interestingly, price information mainly increased the farmers’ use of other inputs (such as fertilizers), whereas complementary services offered by subscribing organizations drove improved farm practices. For instance, Farmer 3-1 indicated, “Socadido provides us with extension advisory services to support our farming activities” (personal communication, 2019).

While output-market information may have influenced family farmers’ production and marketing decisions, their dependence on subscribing organizations for information was subject to limitations. For instance, Farmer 3-2 noted, “The problem is that we sometimes receive this information when the prices have already changed” (personal communication, 2019).

Therefore, as part of its future strategic changes in institutionalizing RCS, Farmgain plans to adjust its business model to offer more affordable output information directly to family farmers, focusing on smaller profit margins but drawing on a larger pool of subscribers. In this regard, the platform’s Senior Market Specialist noted, “One of our plans is to make this information affordable and accessible for many farmers to benefit from our information in a timely manner” (personal communication, 2019). In addition, the platform plans to add input information to its services, as noted by the Senior Market Specialist: “We intend to add fertilizer prices to our portfolio to help address the problem of low fertilizer use amongst farmers” (personal communication, 2019). It is interesting to note that providing information on input and output markets constitutes part of the company’s strategic objectives to further institutionalize RCS for value-chain actors, including family farmers, as evidenced by its strategic documents. The platform is thus moving towards input markets to solve challenges associated with family farmers’ limited access to and low use of inputs.

Output-market coordinator (AgriNet)

The Kudu platform was developed in 2017 by Makerere University as a research-design project, and it was operationalized in the field by AgriNet Uganda, a for-profit private company operating within agricultural value-chains since 2012. The platform positions itself at the level of the output market, explicitly between produce buyers and family farmers, using community-based village agents as intermediaries within the chain (Figure 3). As explained by the director of AgriNet Uganda, the company aims to use its Kudu platform “...to help farmers access better markets beyond their social circles to help increase their incomes while enabling us to earn a commission on produce sold through the platform” (P. Nyende, personal communication, 2019). The platform also maintains relationships with various NGOs within its network (such as CARD Uganda and Kilimo Trust) to create awareness and mobilize farmers to use the Kudu platform. This mechanism registered more than 3 000 family farmers in the first two years of its operation.

Figure 3. Market positioning of the Kudu platform

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Emerging from the company’s experience in produce marketing, many family farmers were decrying a lack of markets for their produce, while the buyers were also decrying a lack of produce for their businesses. Director 4-1 recounted, “You know, farmers were citing lack of markets for their crops while buyers like me were saying they lack produce from the farmers, so we decided to bring these two together through Kudu” (personal communication, 2019). To bridge the gap and improve the access of family farmers to produce markets, AgriNet deployed the Kudu platform – a virtual market that directly connects farmers to buyers through an automated matching mechanism that matches products offered to buyer needs based on crop, price, quantity and location, as submitted by family farmers and buyers, respectively. Family farmers and buyers post products offered and purchase needs to the platform in real time using a feature phone through the Unstructured Supplementary Service Data code.

With its market positioning and the direct virtual matching of family farmers to output buyers, Kudu co-creates value for its network actors in three ways. First, the platform offers family farmers and produce buyers an avenue to sell and buy farm produce without incurring high transactional costs related to market search and transportation. Reduced costs improve market efficiency, enhancing gains for family farmers and buyers. This was illustrated by Trader 4-1: “...and through the platform, we get linked to farmers who have the produce we want, without travelling long distances in villages looking for produce” (personal communication, 2019). Second, directly matching farmers to buyers eliminates intermediaries from the marketing chain, resulting in increased incomes for family farmers. As explained by Farmers 4-1 and 4-3, “...with Kudu, we are linked to buyers who have already agreed to the prices posted with our offers, so in this way, we gain more, as the prices are better than before with intermediaries” (personal communication, 2019).

Finally, using village agents as local intermediaries to oversee the physical transactions between family farmers and buyers guarantees the transparency of the transactions while providing an opportunity for village agents to earn income through commission. For instance, Farmer 4-1 noted that “...agents help to ensure that the physical exchange of produce and money between the farmer and buyer takes place according to the offers made through the platform without any problems” (personal communication, 2019). Observations made through the platform interface revealed that, since AgriNet operationalized Kudu, more than 700 successful transactions have been completed among the 3 000 registered farmers. Village agents have complained of low levels of remuneration, “The commission we get is too low, and sometimes the work we carry is not paid for, and we end up spending our own money for the good of farmers” (Village Agent-2-1, personal communication, 2019).

Results from key-informant interviews indicate that the direct matching of family farmers to output buyers through the platform has created certainty for family farmers with regard to produce markets, which has subsequently influenced the use of inputs – especially the improved seed varieties – by most farmers. As Farmer-4-2 described, “Knowing what is marketable has helped us to use improved seeds to produce for the available market” (personal communication, 2019). Similarly, Farmer 4-3 remarked, “...for example, we planted masavu beans [an improved bean variety] because that’s what the buyers are looking for on the platform” (personal communication, 2019). As observed, family farmers’ use of better farm practices was more strongly influenced by their interactions with other organizations than it was by the information on output markets. As noted by Farmer 4-3, “...we try to follow practices that are taught to us by the different extension officers from other CARD and local government” (personal communication, 2019).

The company is beginning to rethink its strategies, as it has realized that offering a virtual market alone is insufficient to improve production potential and incomes for farmers. Farmer 4-1 indicated, “We would like to produce more for the available markets, but we need credit to buy inputs that can improve our production” (personal communication, 2019). In the same vein, Director 4-1 explained, “We know that farmers need inputs and credit linkages to improve their production, but we are constrained financially. Maybe in the future, this is something we can add” (personal communication, 2019). Despite these challenges, AgriNet’s plans include moving towards input markets and potentially coordinating the entire value-chain as a way of institutionalizing inclusive and effective RCS.

Input market coordinator (Ezy Agric app)

The Ezy Agric app was developed in 2015 by the Akorion Company LTD, a for-profit agritech company involved in the digitization of agricultural value-chains. The company start-up was supported by Chemonics, which implemented the Commodity Production and Marketing activity of the Feed the Future Uganda programme. As Director 2-1 explained, “Chemonics helped us develop our idea into a product best fit for the Ugandan and African market” (personal communication, 2019). The main goal of the Ezy Agric app was to provide family farmers with various production and marketing solutions.

Ezy Agric initially positioned itself between family farmers and agrodealers/input suppliers to improve family farmers’ access to and use of production inputs to enhance farm productivity. To this end, the company incorporated the electronic village agent model, a service-delivery model in which young people are employed as village agents and equipped with smartphones to conduct last-mile delivery of inputs and to gather data from farmers (Akorion, 2016 report). Using Ezy Agric, village agents capture demographic, production, input and product-supply data on family farmers, and they use the Global Positioning System to map the cultivated land. With these digital family-farmer profiles, Akorion aggregates input demands to negotiate good prices from vetted suppliers of genuine agro-input products, as observed from the company’s strategic document.

Through the app, individual family farmers access a wide range of agro-inputs (such as improved seeds, fertilizers, chemicals and sprayers) previously inaccessible to most farmers in rural areas. As illustrated by Farmer 2-2, “...with Ezy Agric, we can now order inputs, and the village agent will deliver them without travelling to town” (personal communication, 2019). The platform manages and processes input orders placed by farmers for last-mile delivery to family farmers’ doors through its electronic village agent model network. The company’s revenue consists of a commission on each sale.

Knowing that input linkages alone could not stimulate the use of inputs and consistent with its mission of providing production and marketing solutions to family farmers, Akorion added research institutions and other stakeholders to its network (see rectangular dotted-line boxes in Figure 4). This was intended to close the knowledge gap concerning production and enable family farmers to access other professional services related to farm production that were currently lacking. For instance, as indicated by Director 2-1, “From the experience, we realized that farmers lacked knowledge on how to use these inputs, so we added agronomic information and production-related services” (personal communication, 2019).

After expanding its network to include more actors, including a research organization and agricultural service providers (some trained by the company), Ezy Agric now offers additional services, including production information (including real-time weather information) and professional production-support services (such as land measurement, soil-type testing and spray services) that support overall farm production.

Figure 4. Market positioning of the Ezy Agric app

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

With its market positioning and the services it offers, Ezy Agric co-creates value for its actor network in four ways. First, it allows agro-input suppliers to sell a variety of inputs while enhancing farmers’ access to the needed inputs. Second, the platform now offers research institutions an outlet through which to communicate their research-based knowledge to a wider farming community, with more than 80 000 family farmers profiled (at the time of this study) as receiving extension services from the app, supported by village agents. Third, the use of a two way communication channel involving a smartphone-based app allows farmers to access inputs and production information, as well as to photograph their farms in order to receive timely advice on diseased or affected plants. Such a mechanism enhances interactions and problem-solving for family farmers.

Finally, using village agents as intermediaries between the platform and family farmers provides a human face in offering registration support, on-the-spot advisory services and last-mile delivery of inputs and production-related services to farmers. As Director 2-2 noted, “...we earn on a commission basis. The more orders farmers make, the more commission we get from the agro-input suppliers, which we also share with the agents” (personal communication, 2019). Commissions earned by village agents on inputs and services purchased through the platform incentivize them to provide support services that enhance family farmers’ access to and use of inputs. It was observed, however, that the commission system for remunerating village-based agents was inadequate to keep them in their roles. More than four of the village agents contacted during the study had abandoned their roles, citing low levels of renumeration.

As indicated by the study results, additional services resulting from the change in the platform’s positioning improved the awareness of family farmers concerning the benefits of inputs and how to use them. Information gathered from field interviews suggests that family farmers’ use of inputs improved when they received production information and other related services provided by the app. For instance, Farmer 2-1 noted, “We knew we could get inputs from the app, but using them was a challenge. With information on the app, we can now use the inputs correctly in the garden” (personal communication, 2019). In addition, Farmer 2-3 indicated that “...some of these inputs require one to know how to measure land and apply them, which was a problem, and now we have land-mapping services which we can use to know how much of the inputs to use” (personal communication, 2019). As stressed by Farmer 2-1, “I planted the improved seed I bought from the app after knowing how much to plant in my land acre without wasting the seed” (personal communication, 2019).

As illustrated by these quotations from the family farmers, additional services enhanced family farmers’ use of inputs due to improved knowledge on inputs and related services they accessed from the app. These findings are consistent with observations made in family farmers’ fields, which revealed farm fields planted with improved maize and bean varieties. While access to production knowledge improved farmers’ use of better farm practices, such improvements were also influenced by the low amount of capital required for such farm practices. As indicated by Farmer 2-4, “We now know how to use these practices, and it is easy for us because they don’t require much money” (personal communication, 2019).

As observed in farmers’ fields, farmers usually planted in rows to ease weeding and cleared farm field boundaries in order to control weeds – both of which are practices the farmers learned from the app after extension information services were added to the app.

While the coordinated offering of a the variety of services on the platform increased the use of inputs by some family farmers, uptake decisions were still constrained by limited access to microcredit, the unaffordability of smartphones, and the high cost of internet data required to access and use the app. In addition, because many family farmers did not own a smartphone, and those who did were not able to navigate the interface or could not afford internet access, the need to use a smartphone app to order inputs and other services made these family farmers dependent on the village agents. The company recognizes these challenges and plans to revise its strategy accordingly. As noted by Director 2-1. “...we are in discussion with bigger banks on providing microcredit to farmers, we also know that produce markets are key for farmers to gain [income] from their farm production and invest in inputs, so we are now looking into how to bring output buyers onto the app” (personal communication, 2019). In so doing, the platform is moving towards incorporating output markets and coordinating the entire value-chain as a way to further institutionalize inclusive and effective RCS.

Input information provider (M-Omulimisa)

Founded as an agritech company by two individuals in 2014 to provide agriculture-related services, M-Omulimisa initially positioned itself between research organizations and family farmers to address the production knowledge gap among family farmers. Learning from the experiences of family farmers, especially with regard to changing weather patterns, M-Omulimisa added the Agriculture Insurance Consortium in 2016, through a broker partnership, to help family farmers manage agricultural risks related to weather shocks while earning commissions from the sale of agro-insurance. At the time of the study, the platform had just expanded its network to include a microcredit institution (Microfinance Support Centre) and a number of input companies to complement its production-related knowledge in order to stimulate farmers’ access to and use of inputs. As recounted by Director 1-1, “...[we] partnered with Microfinance Support Centre to help farmers access inputs on credit and remove the problem of limited cash flow for farmers” (personal communication, 2019). The platform thus started by focusing on one point of the uptake barriers and moved to address a variety of uptake barriers, as shown by the dotted-line boxes in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Market positioning of M-Omulimisa

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

M-Omulimisa provides customized agronomic information to family farmers using simple feature phones through the Unstructured Supplementary Service Data code to bridge family farmers’ knowledge and information gaps concerning inputs. In addition, the platform aggregates the input demands of family farmers to help input suppliers plan and stock the inputs they require. Consistent with the changes in its market system positioning, the platform now provides additional services, including highly subsidized weather-index-based crop insurance to individual farmers, accessed and paid through a mobile money wallet. Furthermore, the platform now manages a low-interest microloan scheme based on family farmer groups. By the time of the study, the platform had registered more than 20 000 family farmers receiving various ICT-based agriculture services, including e-extension, weather-index-based crop insurance, agricultural-input loans and input delivery.

Results from key-informant interviews revealed that the platform co-creates value for its actor network in five ways. First, it offers an outlet for research institutions to communicate their research-based knowledge to a wider farming community than would be possible using face-to-face services. One of the platform’s research partners confirmed this finding, highlighting the platform’s role in scaling agricultural technologies among farmers (N2Africa Uganda, 2018). Second, the two-way communication channel using a user-friendly, feature-phone-based Unstructured Supplementary Service Data code enables farmers to seek and receive on-the-spot extension advice cost-effectively and quickly. For example, as Farmer 1-2 indicated, “...we can ask and get responses on our phones without travelling to access it” (personal communication, 2019).

Third, by aggregating input demand and managing the microloan scheme, the platform provides family farmers with access to inputs on low-risk credit. At the same time, it provides agro-input dealers with better forecasts for the inputs demanded by family farmers, thus offering them the opportunity to expand their input sales. Fourth, the platform shields the risk of defaults on loan repayments and insurance payments, helping the microfinance institution and insurance company reach many farmers with their insurance and credit products. Fifth, using village agents puts a human face on the platform’s operations. These agents assist family farmers (especially those who cannot use their own phones) with registration, on-the-spot advisory services, microloan applications and last-mile delivery of inputs. Their role is incentivized through commissions, although some agents expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of the commissions they earn. As indicated by Village Agent 1-2, “When input loans are approved and inputs delivered, we are able to earn a commission from each group that has received input loans, although it’s not enough for the work we do” (personal communication, 2019).

The provision of customized production information by SMS increased family farmers’ use of better farm practices (such as timely planting and row planting), in response to the recommendations provided by the platform. As Farmer 1-3 explained, “Because of the information we get, we conduct our farm operations in time and use improved farm practices” (personal communication, 2019). Interestingly, the improved use of better farm practices could also have been influenced by the low cost of capital required to use them. In addition to using better farm practices, family farmers became more aware of improved seed varieties and fertilizers due to the platform’s input information and extension advisory services. For instance, Farmer 1-1 noted, “Because of the information we get from M-Omulimisa, we now know what inputs to use to increase our yields” (personal communication, 2019). Similar findings were observed in M-Omulimisa’s project progress report for 2018, indicating that family farmers’ knowledge of inputs had increased because of production information shared through mobile phones (M-Omulimisa, 2022).

Furthermore, while production information increased awareness of input technologies, integrating input microloans as a complementary service boosted the use of inputs. Farmer 1-4 indicated, “Most of us have started using the improved seed because of the input loans we get through M-Omulimisa” (personal communication, 2019). This sentiment was shared by Village Agent 1-1, “We see that the use of improved seed by farmers is increasing due to input loans accessed through M-Omulimisa” (personal communication, 2019).

M-Omulimisa introduced a group-based microloan scheme to improve family farmers’ use of inputs. However, its coverage remains low. In addition, the long application process has limited access to only a few. To be more effective, M-Omulimisa plans to change its credit-access strategy to address the bureaucratic application processes. Director 1-1 explained, “...discussions are underway for digitalizing the whole process to quicken access to these loans” (personal communication, 2019). Similarly, the platform plans to develop an app that will facilitate direct access to inputs and outputs by farmers, thereby improving input and output linkages. As noted by Director 1-1, “We also plan to develop an app that can allow individual farmers to order and pay for their own inputs directly, and to access various produce buyers on the app” (personal communication, 2019). The platform is thus moving towards output markets and the coordination of the entire value-chain as a strategy for further institutionalizing effective RCS in their overall objectives.

Case comparison

This section offers a comparison of the cases, based on the platforms’ overall strategies to improve farmers’ uptake of agricultural input technologies. The section explores similarities and differences in market positioning, services provided, and co-created value and how these variations drive smallholders’ uptake of agricultural input technologies (see Table 5). The section also explores the platforms’ expected strategic changes to investigate their outlook on institutionalizing RCS based on the coordination of diverse actors, service linkages and value co-creation to further improve the uptake of input technologies by family farmers.

Market-system positioning

All of the ICT platforms included in this study sought to solve barriers that affected family farmers’ uptake of input technologies by positioning themselves at different intersections within the market system: between buyers and family farmers (Farmgain Africa and Kudu), between agrodealers and family farmers (Ezy Agric); and between research organizations and family farmers (M-Omulimisa). Learning from their own experiences and realizing that family farmers’ input use could not be solved by focusing exclusively on one point among these barriers, some platforms started to evolve by moving from their initial positioning towards positions where they could address the multiple barriers to uptake. The input-market platforms changed their positioning from information access to input linkages and vice versa.

Although a similar change in positioning was not observed for the output-market platforms, they are still planning to shift their focus in the future, based on their expected strategic changes. The changes in the market positioning for the ICT platforms support the growing understanding that family farmers’ uptake of input technologies cannot be solved by focusing exclusively on the coordination of inputs or on the provision of information related to inputs. Solving the uptake barriers faced by family farmers requires an integrated value-chain approach in which both input and output markets and related services (including financing) are addressed simultaneously within the ICT platforms’ RCS.

Services provided by the platforms

The services provided by the ICT platforms are consistent with their market-system positioning, including the changes in positioning that some of the ICT platforms had made. For instance, the input-information provider added the management of the group-based input microloans to its range of services, while the input-market coordinator added customized production information. The addition of such services demonstrates that, as service ecosystems, ICT platforms are adaptive in nature, changing with the constraints, needs and opportunities existing within the market system. Such changes largely eliminated barriers that hindered family farmers from adopting production-increasing technologies.

Table 5. Case comparison

Concepts

Output-market coordinator (Kudu platform)

Output-information provider (Farmgain Africa)

Input-market coordinator (Ezy Agric app)

Input-information provider (M-Omulimisa)

Market-system positioning

- > Explicitly positioned between output-market buyers and farmers

- > No actors added

- > Explicitly positioned between output-market buyers and farmers relating to several market stakeholders

- > No actors added

- > Initially positioned between farmers and agro-input suppliers to address farmers’f limited access to inputs

- > Later added other actors to solve the production-knowledge gap concerning the use of inputs

- > Initially positioned between research institutions and farmers to solve farmers’f production-knowledge gap

- > Later added other actors to complement product knowledge and stimulate farmers’ access to and use of inputs

Services provided

- > Continued to provide services within its initial market positioning

- > Continued to provide services within its initial market positioning

- > Started with services that enhance farmers’ access to inputs

- > Added other services in line with its market positioning

- > Started with services that enhance farmers’ access to production knowledge

- > Added other services in line with its market positioning

Value co-creation activities

- > Farmers and buyers can sell and buy farm produce cheaply

- > Farmers get better prices due to the absence of market intermediaries

- > Earning opportunities for village agents

- > Reaches farmers through NGOs (subscribers)

- > Uses produce dealers to collect quality data

- > Both farmers and NGOs make informed decisions regarding production, marketing and agricultural interventions, respectively.

- > Earning opportunities for data collectors

- > Initially offered agro-dealers an avenue for selling various inputs, while farmers access needed inputs on-demand

- > Earning opportunities for village agents through commission

With the change in positioning:

- > Offers research institutions an outlet to communicate their research-based knowledge

- > Immediate access to production information by farmers

- > Farmers access production-related services

- > Initially offered an avenue for research institutions to communicate research-based knowledge while reaching farmers through a cost-effective and time-efficient two.way communication channel

With the change in positioning:

- > Farmers access lowcost agro-insurance and low-risk input credit while shielding the microfinance institution’fs loan repayment risk

- > An avenue for the agro-insurance company, microfinance institution and input companies to sell to a wider range of farmers

- > Earning opportunities for village agents through commission

Uptake of input technologies

- > Limited improvement in farmers’ use of improved seed and farm practices

- > Lack of input linkages and credit facilities largely hinders the use of inputs.

- > Limited improvement in farmers’ use of improved seed only and no improvement in the use of better farm practices

- > Dependence on intermediary organizations affects effective access to information.

- > Initial positioning led to low increments in farmers’ use of inputs and better farm practices.

- > Change in positioning increased input use and led to major improvements in using better farm practices.

- > Lack of access to credit, high internet costs and use of smartphones largely hinder the use of inputs.

- > Initial positioning led to limited improvement in farmers’ use of inputs and increased their use of better farm practices.

- > Change in positioning increased farmers’ use of inputs boosted by input loans.

- > The use of inputs is still limited by low input loan coverage and lack of linkages to output markets.

Expected strategic changes for rural communication institutionalization

- > Addition of input linkages

- > Movement towards input markets

- > Development of an app to make information more accessible

- > Integration of fertilizer prices

- > Movement towards input markets

- > Addition of output market linkages and microcredit

- > Movement towards output markets

- > Deeper integration of the input loan scheme, with plans to digitize the service in order to create efficiency and reach more farmers

- > Development of an app that facilitates communication and access to inputs and outputs

- > Movement towards output markets and coordination

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Value co-creation activities

Integrating resources from several actors is one of the value co-creation activities in which all platforms were engaged. For example, NGOs played a role in exchanging market information, creating awareness and providing extension-advisory services to family farmers. Similarly, intermediaries (village agents and market scouts) allowed the platforms to have an on-site presence and a human face to increase interaction with family farmers and other actors, while providing insight into actors’ needs and challenges within their networks. The role of intermediaries provided employment and earning opportunities (through commission or wages) for youth. It should be noted, however, that there remains a clear gap of insufficient payment for the roles played by these village agents and market scouts which needs to be prioritized to sustain such efforts.

Using a two-way communication channel by the input-information provider and input-market coordinator allowed family farmers to interact directly with the platforms and seek on-the-spot advice concerning emergent challenges (such as pests and diseases). Such interactions enhanced joint problem-solving and reduced the risk of downtime to solve problems in the market, thus enabling farmers to make informed production decisions. Such a mechanism suggests that these platforms obtained new insights from the market that allowed them to add value for family farmers, as evidenced by their changes in market positioning.

The provision of on-demand access to information and other services by the output-market coordinator, input-market coordinator and input-information provider enhanced timely production decisions by family farmers, as compared to the case of the output-information producer, which involved access to information on a weekly basis. In addition, the use of preferred local languages by the input-information provider enhanced family farmers’ interaction with and understanding and use of information, as compared to cases in which English was the only medium of exchange. Similarly, the use of feature phones by the output-market coordinator and the input-information provider improved the platforms’ usability for farmers, compared to the platforms with less accessible technologies (such as smartphones and email). This suggests that using ICT tools and languages based on the needs and capabilities of family farmers enhances decisions concerning the uptake of inputs.

Uptake of agricultural input technologies

The study findings demonstrate that agronomic information provided by the input-market cases (M-Omulimisa and Ezy Agric) enhanced the uptake of improved farm practices that do not require a financial investment. In contrast, improvements in the uptake of inputs that do require capital (such as seeds and fertilizers) did not occur until the input-information provider added low-risk input microloans. On the other hand, the output-market cases (Farmgain and Kudu) improved family farmers’ use of improved varieties of seeds that were in high demand in the market, but had no effect on the use of other inputs (such as fertilizer) or on the use of improved farm practices. The latter improvements did not occur until other organizations complemented the platform with information on such practices. In addition, in the input cases (M-Omulimisa and Ezy Agric), the change in the market system positioning of platforms to address various challenges faced by family farmers also enhanced their uptake of agricultural inputs over time, as compared to the platforms that remained in their initial positions (Farmgain and Kudu).

Expected strategic changes

While improvements in the use of inputs and farm practices could be observed across several cases, uptake barriers remained in both input and output markets. This made it necessary for ICT platforms to adapt their strategies to solve these barriers. Albeit at varying speeds and points of integration, all of the ICT platforms in this study were moving towards the same model of value-chain coordination to bring on board both input/output actors and supporting services. Moreover, the study findings indicate that incentivizing intermediaries (such as village agents), who play an important role in actor networks, remains a challenge requiring attention from the platforms.

The four cases in this study illustrate different strategies that ICT platforms use to improve the uptake of agricultural inputs by family farmers. Based on this analysis, Figure 6 outlines the pathways that ICT platforms take to do this. As evidenced by their expected strategic changes, all of the ICT platforms had begun departing from their initial positioning in the market to converge towards becoming future coordinators of the value-chain ecosystem. These ICT platforms are expected to adopt an integrated value-chain approach to providing related services.

Figure 6. Pathways for ICT platforms in improving the use of agricultural-input technologies by family farmers

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

5. Discussion and implications

This study began with the selection of four distinct types of ICT platforms to investigate how their different approaches lead to improved uptake of agricultural input technologies by family farmers. As demonstrated by the findings, however, ICT platforms are not restricted to their original strategies. This is evidenced by their dynamic positioning within the market system, their services and the value they co-create in order to improve the use of input technologies by family farmers.

These results suggest that, although there are different points of departure for the development of ICT platforms in family farmer-based agriculture, the endpoints are likely to be the same if they are to address the challenges faced by family farmers. The strategic changes that the ICT platforms made as they departed from their initial positioning to converge towards becoming value-chain coordinators indicate that ICT platforms recognize that family farmers face a wide variety of uptake barriers that should be addressed simultaneously.

The findings of this study logically connect to several lines of literature. As indicated by previous research on agricultural value-chains, improving the use of inputs by family farmers requires linking to both input and output markets simultaneously in order to resolve the barriers to uptake (Lambrecht and Ragasa, 2018; Mishra and Dey, 2018). The study further suggests that, given this insight, sooner or later, ICT platforms stand to gain by changing their roles, positioning and activities. As such, they go through a learning process – as emphasized by the literature on organizational learning – thus suggesting that new insights lead to changes in organizational forms, strategies and practices (Santa and Nurcan, 2016). Through such processes, ICT platforms evolve into new roles, as discussed in the literature on human evolution (Seabright, 2010; Wilson, 2020). In addition to suggesting that ICT platforms learn and evolve to adopt new roles, an evolutionary perspective on ICT platforms suggests that, if they learn too slowly, such platforms may be crowded out by others that are quicker in developing the competencies required by their new roles.

Practical implications

The current study has three primary implications for ICT platform managers, policymakers, development partners and others seeking to improve access to and use of agricultural technologies for family farmers. First, ICT platforms can stimulate learning and induce dynamic responses regardless of how they began. They should learn from each other and adapt their strategies to create greater impact on farmers’ uptake of input technologies, thereby benefitting the entire agriculture sector. A platform that avoids change or learns too slowly risks becoming redundant within the network. This study envisages the creation of business ecosystems that focus on the co-creation of value through the coproduction of service offerings that provide the competitive advantage that ICT platforms need in order to stay in business. Those in need of such an advantage should broaden the range of services they offer, acquire new skills and knowledge, and reduce costs by engaging in cost-sharing collaborative arrangements with other actors within the market system.

A second implication of the study is related to the network perspective on which it is based, which encompasses interventions relating to information provision and coordination. This perspective is broader than those adopted in many educational programmes for agribusiness managers. This study thus warns that an overly narrow disciplinary perspective can lead ICT platforms to overlook important market developments and avoid taking on coordination roles that could potentially increase their impact. In other words, learning to coordinate requires a disciplinary basis that should be taught effectively in educational programmes for managers of ICT platforms, as well as throughout the value-chain.

Third, to institutionalize effective RCS and accelerate development that encompasses the entire value-chain, ICT platforms could join forces through mergers and acquisitions and/or form an industry organization that facilitates learning and harmonization. This implication is particularly applicable to countries with relatively dense networks of ICT platforms, like Uganda. An industry organization could help manage the learning processes across the various ICT platforms in order to create new innovations (Cerchione, Esposito and Spadaro, 2016; Gorry, 2016) and work towards leveraging resources and knowledge exchange (Hernández-Chea et al., 2021).

Limitations and direction for future research

The insights from this study should be considered in light of its limitations. First, while the results are fairly consistent across the different cases, the pattern that is found in the study is based on one case for each archetype. As such, these findings may be interpreted as theoretically, but not empirically generalizable (Yin, 2009). Second, data were gathered in Uganda, a country with one of the highest numbers of ICT platforms in Africa. Replications in other countries with fewer platforms are likely to find less interaction between platforms and slower learning processes. As such, the patterns revealed in this study may take longer to become identifiable in other contexts, if they appear at all.

Future research may also generate more formal evidence of relationships between ICT platforms and family farmers’ uptake of production technologies. This study addressed such effects only qualitatively. More formal studies assessing different pathways could further test these effects, while incorporating important insights from the current study. Finally, future studies could examine the perceptions of smallholders of the ICT services provided to them. This study showed that learning on the part of ICT platforms regarding orientation towards users (farmers) is essential to stimulating the uptake of input technologies. As such, there may be many micro-level barriers (such as interface design and service marketing) that impede ICT platforms from helping to stimulate uptake, but that may be overlooked by managers who consider only strategic aspects, as discussed in the current study.

6. Conclusions

This study explores the impact of the strategies of different ICT platforms on the uptake of agricultural input technologies by family farmers and the relationship between strategies and institutionalization of RCS. The results show that to overcome barriers in family farmers’ uptake of input technologies, ICT platforms are moving away from an exclusive focus on information provision to the coordination of the value-chain, as well as from input to output, and vice versa, as a way of institutionalizing effective and inclusive RCS. They are thus moving towards covering and providing services across the entire value-chain by adapting their positioning within the market system to integrate additional services and actors. The findings further highlight that ICT platforms that learned from experiences and adapted their original positioning claimed more success in improving family farmers’ uptake of inputs than those that remained in their initial positioning. This means that ICT platforms that focused on institutionalizing inclusive and effective RCS based on the needs of family farmers and other actors had better opportunities to transform family farmers’ production than those that did not. As RCS providers, by coordinating the entire value-chain, ICT platforms can contribute to the development of agricultural value-chains and the uptake of production technologies by family farmers in Africa.

References

Adekambi, S.A., Ingenbleek, P.T. & van Trijp, H.C. 2015. Integrating producers at the base of the pyramid with global markets: a market learning approach. J. Int. Mark., 23: 44–63.

Akaka, M.A. & Parry, G. 2019. Value-in-context: An exploration of the context of value and the value of context. In: Maglio, P.P., Kieliszewski, C.A., Spohrer, J.C., Lyons, K., Patrício, L., Sawatani, Y., eds. Handbook of Service Science, Volume II. Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy. New York City, Springer, CHAM. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98512-1_20

Aker, J.C. & Fafchamps, Marcel. 2015. Mobile phone coverage and producer markets: Evidence from West Africa. The World Bank Econ. Rev., 29(2): 262–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhu006

Aker, J., Ghosh, I. & Burrell, J. 2016. The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture initiatives. Agric. Econ., 47: 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12301

Aker, J.C. & Ksoll, C. 2016. Can mobile phones improve agricultural outcomes? Evidence from a randomized experiment in Niger. Food Policy, 60: 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.03.006

Ayim, C., Kassahun, A., Addison, C. & Tekinerdogan, B. 2022. Adoption of ICT innovations in the agriculture sector in Africa: a review of the literature. Agric. Food Secur., 11: 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00364-7

Bonina C., Koskinen K., Eaton B. & Gawer, A. 2021. Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda. Inf. Syst. J., 31(6): Pages 869–902.

Cerchione, R., Esposito, E. & Spadaro, M.R. 2016. A literature review on knowledge management in SMEs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14: 169–177.

Chavas, J.-P. & Nauges, C. 2020. Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13003

Cole, A.S. & Fernando, A.N. 2021. Mobile’izing Agricultural Advice Technology Adoption Diffusion and Sustainability. The Economic Journal, 131(633): 192–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaa084

Courtois, P. & Subervie, J. 2015. Farmer Bargaining Power and Market Information Services. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 97(3): 953–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau051

Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Poulton, C. & Bezemer, D. 2009. Coordination risk and cost impacts on economic development in poor rural areas. J. Dev. Stud., 45(7): 1093–1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380802550277

Ezeomah, B. & Duncombe, R. 2019. The role of digital platforms in disrupting agricultural value chains in developing countries. In: P. Nielsen & H.C. Kimaro, eds. Strengthening Southern-Driven Cooperation as a Catalyst for ICT4D. 15th IFIP WG 9.4 International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, ICT4D 2019, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, May 1–3, 2019, Proceedings, Part I. Dar es Salaam, Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-18400-1?page=2#toc

Fabregas, R., Kremer, M., Lowes, M., Robert, O. & Zane, G. 2019. SMS-extension and farmer behaviour: lessons from six RCTs in East Africa. https://www.atai-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/textfarmers1.pdf

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014. Farming for the future: communicating efforts to advance family farming. Background paper for the Forum on Communication for Development and Community Media for Family Farming (FCCM). Rome. www.fao.org/3/a-i4223e.pdf

FAO. 2017. The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges. Annual Report 296. Rome.

Feder, G., Just, R.E. & Bezemer, D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change, 33(2): 255–298.

Gawer, A. 2020. Digital platforms’ boundaries: The interplay of firm scope, platform sides, and digital interfaces. Long Range Plan., 54(5): 102045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102045

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W. & Wicki, B. 2009. What passes as a rigorous case study? Strateg. Manag. J., 29(13): 1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.722

Giesler, M. & Fischer, E. 2017. Market system dynamics. Mark. Theory, 17(1): 3–8.

Giller, K., Delaune, T., Silva Vasco, J., Descheemaeker, K., Van de Yen, G., Schut G.T, A., Van Wijk, M. et al. 2021. The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Food Secur., 13: 1073–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01184-6

Glover, D., Sumberg, J. & Anderson, J.A. 2016. The adoption problem, or why we still understand so little about technological change in African agriculture. Outlook Agric., 45(1): 3–6. https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2016.0235

Glover, D., Sumberg, J., Ton, G., Andersson, J. & Badstue, L. 2016. Rethinking technological change in smallholder agriculture. Outlook Agric., 48: 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019864978

Gorry, G.A. 2016. Gorry, G. A. (2016). Memory machines and the future of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14: 55–59.

GSMA. 2020. The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2020. GSM Association. https://www.gsma.com/r/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GSMA-State-of-Mobile-Internet-Connectivity-Report-2020.pdf

Gupta, A., Ponticelli, J. & Tesei, A. 2020. Information, technology adoption and productivity: The role of mobile phones in agriculture. Working Paper 27192. Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27192/revisions/w27192.rev0.pdf

Hernández-Chea, R., Maral, M., Thai, T.M. & Carsten, N.H. 2021. Moving beyond intermediation: How intermediary organisations shape collaboration dynamics in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Technovation, 108: 102332.

Ingenbleek, P.T., Tessema, W.K. & van Trijp, H.C. 2013. Conducting field research in subsistence markets, with an application to market orientation in the context of Ethiopian pastoralists. Int. J. Res. Mark., 30: 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.11.003

Jovanovic, M., Sjödin, D. & Parida, V. 2022. Co-evolution of platform architecture, platform services, and platform governance: Expanding the platform value of industrial digital platforms. Technovation, 118: 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102218

Krone, M. & Dannenberg, P. 2018. Analysing the effects of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on the integration of East African farmers in a value chain context. Z. fur Wirtsch., 62(1): 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2017-0029

Lambrecht, I.B. & Ragasa, C. 2018. Do development projects crowd out private sector activities? Evidence from contract farming participation in Northern Ghana. Food Policy, 74: 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.11.001

Layton, R.A. 2011. Towards a theory of marketing systems. Eur. J. Mark., 45(1/2):259–276.

Layton, R.A. 2015. Formation, Growth, and Adaptive Change in Marketing Systems. J. Macromarketing, 35(3): 302–319.

Layton, R.A. 2019. Marketing Systems – Looking Backward, Sizing Up and Thinking Ahead. J. Macromarketing, 39(2): 208–224.

Lember, V., Brandsen, T. & Tõnurist, P. 2019. The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Manag. Rev., 21: 1665–1686.

Lowder, S.K., Sánchez, M.V. & Bertini, R. 2021. Which farms feed the world, and has farmland become more concentrated? World Dev., 142: 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455

Macours, K. 2019. Farmers’ demand and the traits and diffusion of agricultural innovations in developing countries. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ., 11: 483–499.

Maredia, M.K., Reyes, B., Ba, M.N., Dabire, C.L., Pittendrigh, B. & Bello-Bravo, J. 2018. Can mobile phone-based animated videos induce learning and technology adoption among low-literate farmers? A field experiment in Burkina Faso. Inf. Technol. Dev., 24: 429–460.

McGuire, S. & Sperling, L. 2016. Seed systems smallholder farmers use. Food Secur., 8: 179–195.

Mica, A. 2016. From diffusion to translation and back. Disembedding-Re-embedding and re-invention in sociological studies of diffusion. Pol. Sociol. Rev., 181: 3–19.

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London, Sage.

Mirabeau, L. & Maguire, S. 2014. From autonomous strategic behaviour to emergent strategy. Strateg. Manag. J., 35: 1202–1229.

Mishra, P.K. & Dey, K. 2018. Governance of agricultural value chains: Coordination, control and safeguarding. Rural Studies, 64: 135–147.

M-omulimisa. 2022. Current status and impacts of our work. In: M-omulimisa. Kampala [Cited 2019].

n2Africa Uganda. 2018. Nitrogen to Africa (n2africa) Uganda Annual report, 2018. IITA Uganda. https://n2africa.org/sites/default/files/Uganda20Annual20CountryReport/2018

Nakasone, E., Torero, M. & Minten, B. 2014. The power of information: The ICT revolution in agricultural development. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ., 6: 533–550.

Orr, A. 2018. Markets, institutions and policies: a perspective on the adoption of agricultural innovations. Outlook Agric., 47: 81–86.

Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M. & Choudary, S. 2016. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. In: Platform Revolution. MIT Information and Communications Technologies Conference. Massachusetts, WW Norton & Company.

Santa, M. & Nurcan, S. 2016. Learning organisation modelling patterns. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14: 106–125.

Seabright, P. 2010. The Company of Strangers A Natural History of Economic Life – Revised Edition. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Sheahan, M. & Barrett, C.B. 2017. Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 67: 12–25.

Shiferaw, B., Kabede, T., Kassie, M. & Fisher, M. 2015. Market imperfections, access to information and technology adoption in Uganda: Challenges of overcoming multiple constraints. Agricultural Economics, 46: 475–488.

Simtowe, F., Marenya, P., Amondo, A., Worku, M., Rahut, D.B. & Erenstein, O. 2019. Heterogeneous seed access and information exposure: implications for the adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties in Uganda. Agric. Food Econ., 7(15).

Stallkamp, M. & Schotter, A.P. 2021. Platforms without borders? The international strategies of digital platform firms. Glob. Strategy J., 11(1): 58–80.

Steinke, J., van Etten, J., Müller, A., Ortiz-Crespo, B., van de Gevel, J., Silvestri, S. & Priebe, J. 2021. Tapping the full potential of the digital revolution for agricultural extension: an emerging innovation agenda. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 19: 549–565.

Van Campenhout, B. 2021. The Role of Information in Agricultural Technology Adoption: Experimental Evidence from Rice Farmers in Uganda. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change, 69(3): 1239–1272.

Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. 2016. Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 44: 5–23.

Wajid, A., Raziq, M.M., Maliq, O., Malik, S.A. & Khurshid, N. 2019. Value co-creation through actor embeddedness and actor engagement. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Bradford, Vol. 37(3): 271–283. doi:10.1108/MIP-07-2018-0241

Werners, S.E., Wise, R.M., Butler, J.R., Totin, E. & Vincent, K. 2021. Adaptation pathways: A review of approaches and a learning framework. Environ. Sci. Policy, 116: 266–275.

Wilson, D.S. 2020. This view of life: Completing the Darwinian revolution. 1st edition. New York, Vintage Books.

World Bank. 2017. Enabling the Business of Agriculture. Washington, DC.

Yin, R.K. 2003. Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 5(14): 359–386.

Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Yin, R.K. 2013. Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19, 321–332.

Yin, R.K. 2018. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Zhang, J., Mishra, A.K. & Hirsch, S. 2021. Market-oriented agriculture and farm performance: Evidence from rural China. Food Policy, 100: 102023.

Chapter 8

Community art and communication: crafting sustainable landscape stewardship in Terai Arc, Nepal

Authors:

Prakash Raj Bista

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Lalitpur, Nepal

Loes Witteveen

Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Ajit Tumbahangphe

National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), Nepal

Jan Fliervoet

Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Walter Verspui

Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Naresh Subedi

National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), Nepal

Umesh Paudel

National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), Nepal

1. Introduction

As the complexity of contemporary rural development issues is increasingly recognized, it is necessary to reconceptualize the role and relevance of communication in rural innovation and social change processes. In this reconceptualization, the focus has shifted away from the interpretation of rural extension as an interaction between a sending knowledge institution and passively receiving rural communities (with discussion over top-down vs bottom-up approaches). Dominant modes of thinking now relate to science, practice and society interfaces; focus on interaction and dialogue; or even boldly indicate that “change is an unpredictable, messy and emergent process” (Leeuwis et al., 2011, p. 23).

These new ways of thinking, focusing on participation and horizontal communication, are confronted with the urgent need to address the integrated challenges, risks, hurdles and dilemmas rural communities face in achieving a sustainable livelihood. This requires understanding the system, often beginning from a social-ecological-system perspective, including related institutional stakeholders, rather than focusing on sectoral institutional policies and arrangements (the common perspective in conventional, linear adoption and diffusion models). Knowledge-creation and information-exchange processes are no longer considered linear. They are ever more reflected in a system perspective wherein environmental and long-term issues are interwoven with short-term or seasonal needs in family farming. Ostrom (2009) proposed a framework to analyse the sustainability of social-ecological systems to understand complex interactions within different systems and scales around natural-resource governance. Ostrom’s framework supports a multidisciplinary approach and systems thinking as it centralizes the interaction between subsystems of resources, governance and users in a context of surrounding ecosystems and the social, political and economic setting.

Aligned with such contemporary thinking, the rural communication services (RCS) framework moves away from a communication model of knowledge transfer to achieve “enhanced capacity for decision-making and collective action by rural people” (FAO, 2024, p. 4). To achieve this enhanced capacity, the RCS framework analyses the guiding principles, approaches, strategies and facilitation in an institutional context. This chapter follows the RCS framework to explore the facilitation of innovative strategies for enhancing community-based landscape stewardship by farming families in the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) in Nepal. The empirical data were collected through the research project Save the Tiger! Save the Grassland! Save the Water!, in which the authors collaborate in the work package Landscape Stewardship for Water and Grassland Management Strategies, also exploring community art as an RCS approach in the Terai Buffer Zone of the Bardia National Park.[1] In the buffer zone, societal challenges arise because of competing claims over natural resources and because of uncertainties (not to mention risks) that are present in the living environment of rural communities. Rural families in the Terai Buffer Zone “rely heavily on forest resources for a living and are always vulnerable to wildlife attacks since they share the same forest landscape” (NTNC, 2022, p. 14).

Rijke et al. (forthcoming) reported a social-ecological system analysis for tiger and wildlife conservation in the Terai ecosystem. Their study found that anthropogenic activities interact with water systems, natural grasslands and wildlife populations. The results of their social-ecological system analysis support the integration of a nature-conservation perspective and a rural-livelihoods perspective in the TAL. Regional stakeholders representing either perspective also envision integrating both, although the institutional environment does not easily favour such an integrative view. However, boundaries between formal institutional policies and mandates become blurred and overlap in regional arenas where stakeholders from diverse institutions are exposed to the complex reality of the everyday life dilemmas. In TAL, institutional stakeholders meet in their professional arenas and act on the integration of nature conservation and rural livelihoods – a common practice in the rural communities.

As the ecosystem analysis undertaken by Rijke et al. (forthcoming) took place in the context of a tiger-conservation project, the perception and portrayal of the tiger were studied from the commonly-held perspective of tigers, described by the World Wildlife Federation as “possibly the world’s most iconic big cat species” (WWF, June 2024). The history of wildlife conservation and the human–wildlife conflict is long and changing, and the tiger is an iconic species in the conflict.

The dynamics of tiger conservation in Nepal relate to harsh dilemmas on competing claims of global ambitions to be achieved in areas where the people face poverty, unemployment and social inequality (Mishra, 2013). Human–wildlife interaction has many narratives, and attention to a rural-livelihoods perspective is not omnipresent. The National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) collaborates closely with the government and other stakeholders to build community conservation capacities, focusing on the management committees and buffer zone users’ committees and groups. Effectuating this policy is complicated by aspects of access to natural resources (such as firewood and fodder), as dependencies on forest resources are directly linked to wildlife sightings and human–wildlife conflict (Gaire, 2006). The complexity of adequate wildlife management in the buffer zone is described by Thing and Poudel (2017) as follows:

It is evident that BZCFs [buffer zone community forests] are critical socio-ecological systems, which are vital for conservation of forest and biodiversity in PAs and BZs [protected areas and buffer zones], as well as significant to local livelihoods given the interactions of rural and agrarian people with the natural environment and resources. BZCFs are critical institutions of local communities, which are complementing the goals and efforts of PA and BZ management. Strengths and successes of BZCFs are attributed to agencies of local communities, their conservation stewardship, stake in forest resources and incentives in forest conservation (p. 67).

A similar plea for what Ostroms’ framework would describe as attention to interaction can be observed as major institutional actors such as the NTNC-Bardia Conservation Program (NTNC-BCP) and the district-level authority of the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Land Management (MoALM) recognize a potential for increased collaborative efforts, as indicated in the following statement:

Based on fieldwork, it is suggested that the voice of the local community is underrepresented in policymaking and action-taking related to conservation. Community engagement seems to be limited to education and campaigning and is mostly a one-way process from conservationists as messengers to community members as recipients (Griffioen, 2023, p. 6).

As regional staff members of the NTNC-BCP and the MoALM acknowledge that local communities are entitled to voice their concerns and ambitions regarding their engagement with the current as well as with the future situation of the social-ecological system, it is imperative to pursue a vision of landscape stewardship on the part of the local communities and farming families. In this context, this study, conducted by a transdisciplinary research team, explored the design and development of communication strategies with the potential to facilitate such an envisioning process. This chapter examines the use of two innovative RCS strategies for enhancing landscape stewardship and supporting rural livelihoods: a serious game and a poetry route. The chapter begins by describing the rural livelihoods in the lowland Terai buffer zone. It then elaborates on facilitating community-based landscape stewardship using the two RCS strategies: a serious game called RiverSideVillage and a poetry route. Finally, the chapter provides discussion and conclusions around the process and outcomes of the implementation of the two RCS strategies.

2. Rural livelihood in the lowland Terai buffer zone

Bardia National Park is the largest national park in the lowland Terai of Nepal, covering 968 km^2 , with a surrounding buffer zone of 507 km^2 . The park and its buffer zone are situated in the country’s southwestern region, which covers the Bardia, Banke and Surkhet districts of the Lumbini and Karnali provinces. About 86 percent of the park and the buffer zone lie in the Bardia District, while 13.17 percent and 0.24 percent fall under the Surkhet and Banke districts, respectively (Bardia National Park Office, 2022). Buffer zones are spread over five municipalities and three rural municipalities:[2] Thakurbaba Municipality, Madhuban Municipality, Barbardia Municipality, Bansgadi Municipality and Geruwa Rural Municipality in Bardia District; Bheriganga Municipality and Barahatal Rural Municipality in Surkhet District; and Baijanath Rural Municipality in Banke District. Forest covers a significant portion of the park and the buffer zone (76 percent), followed by cultivated lands (13.48 percent), shrubland (3.64 percent), sandy areas (3.42 percent), water bodies (1.63 percent) and grass areas (1.47 percent) (Bardia National Park Office, 2022). The Karnali River in the west and the Babai River in the centre are the primary rivers that drain the park. The total population of the buffer zone is estimated at 133 470 (approximately 26 117 households), more than 50 percent of whom live below the poverty line (Bardia National Park Office, 2022). Major ethnic groups and castes in the area include the Tharu – the Indigenous People who have lived in the area for centuries; and the Brahmin, Chhetri and Dalit castes.

The Buffer Zone Management Committee manages the buffer zone through a participatory approach comprising the buffer zone community representatives. In addition to the Buffer Zone Management Committee (an apex body), 262 buffer-zone user groups and 19 buffer-zone user committees have also been formed to involve the communities in managing their natural resources. Legislation related to the buffer zone stipulates that 30 to 50 percent of the revenues generated by the park must go to the local communities for the implementation of programs related to conservation and to livelihood improvement. The Management Plan of Bardia National Park and its Buffer Zone (FY 2022/23–2026/27) details the activities and estimated budgets for park protection, habitat management, encroachment protection, human–wildlife conflict minimization, capacity enhancement, livelihood improvement and so on (Bardia National Park Office, 2022). In addition to the Bardia National Park Office, the NTNC also implements the Bardia Conservation Program to minimize human–wildlife conflict, reduce dependency on forest resources, support the empowerment of local communities and enhance household incomes through interventions such as alternative crop promotion, support to establish community homestays, different types of training for youth and women, and so on (NTNC, 2018, 2022).

According to the new constitution of Nepal, local governments are mandated to provide agricultural extension services in the buffer zone. As such, Thakurbaba Municipality offers advisory services and other support services to the farmers in that municipality, while Madhuban Municipality delivers these services to farmers in their territory. Each local government has a structure and staff to accomplish this task. In addition to the local government, the provincial government also implements various regional agriculture-development programs. For instance, the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Management (MoALM) of Lumbini Province has established the Integrated Agriculture and Livestock Development Office at Bardia to provide agricultural extension services to the farmers of Bardia District.

Most of the population of the buffer zone depend on agriculture and livestock rearing for their livelihoods. The major crops grown in the area are paddy rice, wheat, maize, oilseeds, lentils and various vegetables and fruits. Livestock is an integral part of local farming systems. Cattle, buffaloes, goats, sheep, chickens, ducks and pigs are the primary livestock types raised in the buffer zone. Farming families rear livestock to satisfy household requirements for food and income generation. The forest is also an essential resource for livelihoods as it provides fodder for livestock, leaf litter for animal bedding and fertilizer, timber for house construction and furniture, firewood for cooking, and some wild foods for human consumption. The Tharu People, a predominant social group in the study area, are known to be more reliant on the forest for their livelihoods than other ethnic groups, and the forest constitutes their way of life and form of economy (Müller-Böker, 1991).

In addition to forestry and agriculture, other economic activities include cottage and small industries, businesses and jobs (including jobs as civil servants, teachers and being in the army). The park offers some households in the buffer zone, namely in the villages of Thakurdwara and Dalla, the opportunity to engage in ecotourism activities such as homestays, hotels and shops, as an additional source of income (Sharma and Neupane, 2023). As in other parts of the country, because of limited employment opportunities, the youth of the buffer zone emigrate to foreign countries such as India, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia for work, and send remittances, which are a major source of household income in the area. A study conducted by Shahi, Khanal, Jha, Bhusal and Silwal (2023) in the buffer zone areas of Thakurbaba and Madhuban municipalities (in Bardia District) found that about 11 percent of households depend upon remittances sent by household members who work abroad, whereas Paudyal (2016) reported in a study conducted in the buffer zone areas of Thakurbaba and Geruwa rural municipalities that approximately 17 percent of households received remittances. Paudyal further asserted that, following agriculture, remittances were the primary source of income for the study population.

3. Facilitating community-based landscape stewardship through rural communication services

As described in the previous section, this study focuses on the use of RCS strategies to guide farming families to address landscape stewardship in the context of wildlife conservation in the Terai buffer zone. The strategies align with social–ecological system analysis and address long-term sustainability, with a strong emphasis on voicing local perceptions, ideas and ambitions.

While communities participate directly in the management of the buffer zone through user groups and committees, strategies are sought to address a combined wildlife conservation/rural livelihoods perspective for a wider audience of farming families. To emphasize the diverse perspective of farming families as “users” in the TAL social-ecological system, voicing has been interpreted from a “giving voice” perspective, in the sense of mediated participation (Witteveen et al., 2009). The study applied a qualitative approach using community-art methodologies to create a serious game and a poetry route whereby the local community could express their voice on the lived experience of nature conservation and family farming. The next section elaborates on the design, development and facilitation of both strategies, based on the rural reality and seeking to bring stewardship to the policy arena of TAL conservation management.

The serious game: RiverSideVillage

The serious game RiverSideVillage (see Figure 1) supports collective conversation on stewardship while allowing community members to discuss their perceptions of related problems and issues of living in the buffer zone (Rijke et al. forthcoming). Based on fieldwork around the Karnali and Geruwa rivers and in the Bardia National Park, conducted in 2022, the serious game RiverSideVillage simulates and represents the river-based ecosystem, aiming for players to experience human–wildlife interactions in a river area. The game’s playing field represents an area with both human and non-human actors (the river and animals) and important resources. The game simulates daily activities during the cropping season. Families require maize, water and firewood, and grass and water for their buffalos. The animals need to find water and feed. The game is developed using Harteveld’s (2010) framework, which proposes that effective game design must balance three dimensions: reality, meaning and play. Essential questions related to these dimensions are: “Can I use this in or relate this to the real world (reality)? Do I get some value from it (meaning)? Do I find it engaging, immersive and fun (play)?” (Harteveld et al., 2010)

Figure 1. Poster announcing the game and monkey actor card (prototype version)

Source: CoPSEL Studio

The game’s resources are calculated to ensure that after three rounds of playing, or by the end of day 3, most villagers are confronted with fatalities due to a shortage of resources. This outcome is not announced at the start, and the game is introduced as a social-ecological system analysis in the form of a serious game. The game exemplifies for players the harshness of life in the buffer zone. As the game unfolds, participants experience how it is nearly impossible for families to survive as shortages of major resources result from the actions of humans and wildlife in their surroundings, such as lack of deer (tigers eating deer) or lack of maize or firewood for cooking (monkeys stealing maize, limited firewood). In addition to resource cards and characters for human and non-human actors, the systemic impact of seasonal climate change-related impacts (flood, droughts), of wildlife conservation policies, of pandemics such as COVID-19, of water pollution and of other drivers and stresses on required resources are represented with “event cards”. The game manager is responsible for ensuring that the simulation gains shape by organizing the game elements, introducing the game rules, and facilitating the dynamics of the game around representing a day of searching for and consuming resources.

The game was prototyped in the workshop, Social Change and Community Art – Artistic System Concepts and Approaches for Stewardship, conducted in Kathmandu in March 2023, with students in the Environmental Science and Art and Design programmes of Kathmandu University and Tribhuvan University.[3] The game immersed the students in the interface between wildlife conservation and rural livelihoods in the buffer zone. The experiences during the game were used in an exercise of social imagination, which focused on the shifting baseline syndrome in the context of the buffer zone and recognition of the need for intergenerational thinking. The shifting baseline syndrome describes a gradual change in the accepted norms for the condition of the natural environment due to a lack of human experience, memory or knowledge of the past. This was also recognized by the students, in view of their living in the capital city, far from Bardia Park. Throughout the workshop (even after the game), the river, represented with blue plastic, remained in the classroom, meandering along the floor, depicting the river and the river banks in the buffer zone. It was remarkable to observe how the students, when talking about the buffer zone communities, kept their eyes on the river as if the memory of the game had become embodied in it.

Students were invited to express an impression of their experience using randomly coloured sticky notes. The following quotes from the students exemplify their experiences:

To give opportunity to learn about human–wildlife interactions to art students seemed odd to my ears initially. Being a science student, I thought of the scientific techniques I would use, about the long, detailed methodologies. But as today, when I saw how art student perceived human–wildlife interaction and described, I was happy to learn dynamics of human civilization, environment and their learning. World is simple to comprehend but complex at the same time, matters which eyes we use (Student 1, personal communication, 2023).

To immerse yourself with the surrounding is questioning the questions as the world works other way. Just be in other’s shoes. Places are born with stories, and we are the characters in it, where we choose the narration (Student 2, personal communication, 2023).

Based on the initial prototyping, the game was adapted using a different calculation of available resource cards to represent the shortages of resources in real life. At the start of the game, each family received five resource cards as a daily ration: maize, firewood and water; and grass and water for one buffalo. This was to prevent immediate shortages in the first rounds of the game. In addition, the playing field was upgraded from using coloured rolls of plastic bags to different sizes and colours of larger pieces of cloth representing the river, the maize fields, the forests and the village.

The next prototyping session occurred in Thakurdwara (in February 2024) at the NTNC-BCP premises. The RiverSideVillage game was played with about 20 local community representatives, NTNC-BCP employees and two game managers (Figure 2). This time, the observers also took into account the negative impact of incorporating a fatality into the game as the danger of fatalities in the buffer zone is a reality in the everyday life of this group of players.

Figure 2. Dynamics during and after playing the game

© Loes Witteveen

During the post-game reflection, the community members expressed a sense of happiness that the game depicted the reality of their daily situation. Participants considered that the game was a collective and exciting experience that simulates their reality. The following comment indicates how the use and consumption of resources during the game was experienced as recognizable and realistic:

I liked this drama very much. It’s good because we are villagers, we are rural family. When living in the village, we rear buffaloes for which grass is required; we need firewood; we need water; we need to cultivate. Animals come in. We need everything (Participant 1, personal communication, 2024).

Another comment elaborated further on this and described the game as a conversation starter:

We liked this drama very much. It’s a highly consciousness-raising play. Please bring more such plays. The quality of the game as conversation starter that will help the villagers understand things better. Please bring more such plays, this is what I think (Participant 2, personal communication, 2024).

The following quote points to the game’s potential to impact longer-term learning among the participants:

I think the drama is really beautiful and you can come to us again, like to this village. And this drama asks people at conservation to invite… For example, how can animals and agriculture cohabit in the village, and how can I do conservation and not go up to the forest and monkey that come to here and destroy the food and try to attack too many people there and die… They are very dangerous (Participant 3, personal communication, 2024).

Some days after second prototyping, the game was played again at the NTNC premises and recorded on video.[4] The description of the video describes the game as follows:

This video is a part of a community awareness campaign. Our campaign aims to raise awareness about the importance of coexistence and advocate for behavior change among communities. By understanding the needs of wildlife and implementing practical solutions, we can mitigate conflict and foster a more harmonious relationship between humans and wildlife. Join us on this journey as we explore real-life examples, share valuable insights, and highlight actionable steps to promote human–wildlife coexistence. Together, let’s work for humans and wildlife (Wilder Nature, 2024).

In the conversation after playing the game, the terms “game” and “players”, used by the facilitators, were changed by the participants to “drama” and “actors”. The term “actor” seemed to better reflect the players taking up a dramatized interpretation of their role. In addition, the term “drama” may have reflected the initial caution about the impact of the fatalities. Moreover, it was observed that the collective joy of playing resulted in a final laugh over the tiger who remained alone at the end of the game and would, therefore, also die due to a lack of prey. After some initial discussion about the correct interpretation of the game rules, it became clear that whatever happens as the game unfolds, the central idea – the representation of the situation in the buffer zone – is clear. Accepting the game as representing reality makes it possible to converse about farming and human–wildlife conflicts and facilitates addressing overarching themes, such as stewardship and collective social learning.

Based on this second prototyping experience, the evaluations of the participants, and observations regarding the role of the game manager, it was decided that the game was nearly ready for final production. For the final production, the game manual will be improved with more detailed instructions for the game manager and the facilitator. The feature of remittances as a source of income for rural livelihoods might be represented in a resource or event card. To experience the simulation (or drama, as it is referred to by the participants), a larger number of players can be accommodated, and it is recommended that a matrix be prepared indicating the number of players vs the required number of actors and resource cards in the game.

In its current version, the game can also be expanded beyond the level of farm family–wildlife interaction. The role of rural organizations and institutions could be added, although this would require additional design and a longer playing time. The experience of the Kathmandu and Thakurdwara prototyping sessions indicates that the game achieves its primary objective. The collective experience simulated in the game creates a platform for farming families and related stakeholders to collectively learn and make decisions on the human–wildlife conflict in the buffer zone.

The poetry route: in the buffer zone, farms, families and wildlife

Social imaginaries are defined as “a way of ordinary people imagining their social surroundings; it is not merely a social theory because it is carried in images, stories, and legends rather than theoretical formulations” (Carpentier, 2017, p. 21). Social imaginaries can be communicated in images and stories of popular and artistic expression, representing community values, principles, fantasies, motivations, institutions and rules. Such products of social imaginaries give meaning and presence to people’s surroundings and position those involved in relation to one another. According to Svasek (2016), artistic and creative expression is not merely a spontaneous act, but can be seen as a surprising, emotional process with elements of repetition and of creating new configurations. Witteveen et al. (2022) provide a more explicit focus on social imaginaries and community art as a methodology and practice for public participation. The authors describe one such methodology, the poetry route, as contributing to:

a shared vision, combining perspectives on cultural heritage, nature conservation and economic feasibility in a way that was supported by the diverse nature conservation organizations, local and regional governmental bodies, landowners, tourist businesses, the general public and other stakeholders (Witteveen, 2022, p. 120).

The poetry route’s design, production and use focus on an inclusive configuration of all actors involved, and participation is explored as a design challenge. The poetry route as a poetic and artistic inquiry method requires facilitators or social science researchers to be “process designers”. This refers to the production of the poetry route and the creation of spaces where the poetry route enables the mediated participation of rural voices in complex issues. The concept of mediated participation is found to be useful as it allows articulating the political perspective. As described by Witteveen:

Mediated participation aims to bring ‘distanced’ or ‘overlooked’ stakeholders in a mediated way to the doorstep of decision makers by using media. It promotes inclusion of their stories, concerns and proposals in decision-making processes because it allows policy and decision makers to ‘learn’ in mediated interaction with distant stakeholders (Witteveen et al., 2009, p. 32).[5]

The rest of this section reports on the implementation of the poetry route, In the buffer zone – an artistic and poetic inquiry method designed to allow the creators (members of local communities) to express their reality, perceptions, motivations and values regarding landscape stewardship through a series of paintings and poetry. Specifically, the participants created artwork and poems that expressed their feelings about rural livelihoods, human–wildlife conflicts, and their relationship with nature, the rivers and the landscape.

To implement the poetry route, community art workshops were held in two different communities in the Bardia National Park buffer zone (see Table 1 and Figure 3). Each of the workshops lasted about five hours. Approximately 25 participants of different ages, genders and occupations were invited by the NTNC to each workshop. All the participants received transportation allowance.

Table 1 Community art workshops in Dalla and Parsenipur

Workshop 1

Workshop 2

Location

Dalla, Madhuvan Municipality, Ward 1, Bardia

Parsenipur, Geruwa Municipality, Ward 6, Bardia

Venue

The community hall.

A room built by the National Park Authority and the community.

Date

1 February 2024

2 February 2024

Time

11:15–16:00 h

11:30–16:00 h

Number of participants

25 community members, including the ward chairperson (6 women and 19 men)

23 community members, including the ward chairperson and a member of the Buffer Zone Committee (7 women and 16 men)

Facilitators

Staff members of the NTNC, the MoALM and Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences (5 in total)

Staff members of the NTNC, the MoALM, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences (5 in total)

Figure 3. Community art workshop, Parsenipur

© Loes Witteveen

The workshops consisted of several stages:

1. Introduction of the research project and an informed-consent procedure.

2. Introductory activities to increase familiarity with painting and poetic thinking.

3. A collective art activity to advance the compilation of the final poetry route. Participants were asked to paint a forest in an abstract way within three minutes. Then they were invited write some words about the forest. Once all participants had produced some elements, they passed their work to a neighbour who continued working on their piece. The result of this exercise was a collective expression of their landscape in artwork and poems.

4. After the introductory exercises, participants were invited to paint on A4 paper their expression of rivers and nature, their expression of farming in Bardia and their expression of human–wildlife interactions/conflicts.

5. The painting was followed by writing poetry about their relationship with nature in Bardia, about human–wildlife interactions, and about a sustainable future and their dreams. Illiterate participants were paired with literate participants for the poem writing or assisted otherwise.

6. The paintings were exhibited and some of the poems were read aloud as a collective recognition of the quality of the artwork. Preferences for combining the paintings and poems were indicated by the participants.

7. At the end of the workshops, follow-up procedures for the review sessions were explained. After explaining that the artwork would be compiled in a poetry route, the consent procedure was repeated (now that participants had a clearer idea of what specifically they were consenting to).

After the community art workshops, all the artwork was brought to a temporary studio for post-production. As the poetry route was to be produced in both Nepali language and English, all the poems were translated into English before combining the paintings and poems to create the poetry route. In accordance with the dynamics of community art, all the artwork was considered for inclusion in the poetry route.

The production of the poetry route was initiated with an iterative process of searching for clusters of poems and related paintings. Different themes were identified and as the selection and combination of artwork proceeded, a storyline emerged, resulting in the following order: nature, farming, human–wildlife interaction and, finally, dreams and the future. During the compilation of the poetry route, the team received valuable feedback from diverse visitors. The title, In the Buffer Zone, Farms, Families, and Wildlife, came up and was approved by the review group.

A review session at the local level was organized in Thakurdwara, with the Nepali versions of the poetry, to review and finalize the poetry route. Seven banners containing the combined paintings and poems were printed in large size and in full colour to give the invited reviewers a good impression of the final poetry route. Nineteen persons, including eight participants from the community workshops and from other communities and eleven NTNC employees participated in the review. The review (or prototyping) session focused on the alignment of the all the elements in the poetry route (including the poems and paintings that were paired together, the translation and other production elements). All the poems were read aloud, and the participants decided on the inclusion, rejection or adaptation of elements in the poetry route.

A review session was also held at the regional level at the Integrated Agriculture and Livestock Development Office of the Bardia District, focusing on recognition of the livelihood descriptions and cultural expressions of the communities in the poetry route. A third review session was held at the national level, at the headquarters of the NTNC, in Kathmandu, mainly focused on the potential of using the poetry route to facilitate a social dialogue between institutions and policymakers to discuss the integration of nature conservation and rural livelihood conditions in policies and actions. After the review sessions the poetry route was finalized and produced. It included 15 banners (an opening banner, 13 banners with poems, and a closing banner) with poems printed with a painting in the background (Table 2).

The poems reflect references of major resources, referring to rain, rivers, forests, oxygen, animals and crops. Land use and infrastructure are mentioned in relation with the buffer zone, including the fields, the fence, our house, the village, the school and the cooperative. The people’s coexistence with wildlife is, for example, recognized in this fragment from the poem Oxygen:

Forest is for all

Not only for human

It is our life

This is the nature

Table 2. Overview of the final poetry route with 15 banners

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Other sentences such “our houses are near to the forest” and “flooding occurs sometimes, that scares us” indicate the state of uncertainty, and even fear, as “wild animals come to our village” and “we don’t go out at night.” And yet, the final poem envisions that “nature is future” and ends with the verse:

We can live in the buffer zone
Benefit from forest and farming
Safe with wild animals
A prosperous future generation

4. Discussion and conclusion

This chapter adopted the RCS framework as its overall point of entry and focused on the design and facilitation of two innovative RCS strategies. The review of the design of the two strategies and of their implementation in the workshops demonstrates how “enhanced capacity for decision-making and collective action by rural people” (FAO, 2024, p. 4) can be achieved. The review aims to support institutions involved in adopting innovative strategies such as these to represent the diverse perspectives of rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation. Community art and communication-based strategies aiming to enhance collective action for stewardship are not typical in the RCS repertoire. As indicated by many authors, these promising methods require further study (Jean et al., 2018; Flint, 2023). An additional concern is formulated by Rodela et al. (2019), which refers to insufficient time to allow a deeper iterative evaluation of game design. The empirical work of this chapter elaborates on the prototyping requirements for the game design.

Integrating rural-livelihood and wildlife-conservation perspectives in the buffer zone of Bardia National Park in the TAL seems complicated. However, it proves to be accessible when acting within local-landscape dimensions. Beyond formal policies and institutions, the landscape is a collective space where the voices of its inhabitants are expressed and heard – when someone is willing to listen.

The game RiverSideVillage presents an opportunity to share a social-ecological system analysis with the rural community that translates the human-water-wildlife system into a game that represents their lived reality, allowing further discussion and analysis from the local perspective. In the context of RCS, questions about the game’s relevance quickly vanish upon realizing that the major challenges are the design, development and facilitation of such a game, which require a transdisciplinary team – which is currently not the common configuration in rural institutions. The example presented by Jean et al. (2018) demonstrating how serious games in sustainable water governance integrate different fields of knowledge, indicates that the design and facilitation teams of such games must also possess competencies across different fields of knowledge for the serious game to be of high quality, attractive and relevant. As Dillon (2013) explains, “the aesthetics of serious games are clearly the most challenging part to analyse as it relates to the subjective experience of ‘fun’ among players”.

Based on the 6-11 framework explained by Dillon (2013), the RiverSideVillage game connects to emotions, such as excitement and pride (if players have sufficient resources to survive), and instincts, such as survival, collecting and competition.

The poetic inquiry method addresses how farming families in rural communities express the material and social dimensions of the landscape, moving between different timescales of the seasons and a past, present and future timeline. The poetic inquiry method gives insight into the families’ perceptions of current experiences, challenges and landscape ambitions. At the same time, the resulting poetry route is a product of the research activity, which can be used as a tool for mediated participation. In support of poetic inquiry as a valuable methodology to explore further, Flint (2023, p. 11) indicates that poetic inquiry is “part of a holistic framing.” “Poetry,” he states, “can attend the emotional, intellectual, embodied and temporal dimensions of landscape heritage.”

The strategies discussed in this chapter counteract the idea of seeing RCS as a linear communication process. Participation and horizontal communication are central to the two innovative strategies: the serious game RiverSideVillage and the poetry route In the buffer zone, farms, families and wildlife. These strategies empower farming families to address landscape stewardship in the context of wildlife conservation in the Terai Buffer Zone, addressing urgent sustainability challenges from a social-ecological system perspective by bringing stakeholders together in learning environments.

In these environments, facilitators are seen as process designers. They create space for change and set out the routes for navigation. Based on the community art methodology, the voices of farming families are heard through active social imagination. In a simulated reality of daily activities and experienced complexity, participants made their felt realities explicit in words, images and actions. In the various workshops conducted at different levels in Nepal, words, images and actions initiated conversations about human–wildlife interaction, aiming to enhance community-based landscape stewardship by farming families in Nepal’s TAL.

References

Bardia National Park Office. 2022. Management Plan of Bardia National Park and Its Buffer Zone (2022/23-2026/27). Bardia, Nepal, Bardia National Park Office.

Boelee, El., Geerling, G., Zaan, B., Blauw, A. & Vethaak, A. 2019. Water and health: From environmental pressures to integrated responses. Acta Trop., 2019 May 193: 217–226. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.03.011.

Carpentier, N. 2017. The discursive-material knot. New York, Peter Lang Publishing.

Dillon, R. 2013. Serious games and fun: An analysis. International Journal of Innovative Research & Development, 2 (5): 1046–1063.

FAO. 2024. Rural communication services for family farming – Results of a global forum. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9520en

Fenge, L., Hodges, C. & Cutts, W. 2016. Performance poetry as a method to understand disability. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum Qual Soc Res, 17(2), Art 11. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2464/3957 [Accessed on 24 December 2021].

Flint, A. 2023. Poetry, paths, and peatlands: integrating poetic inquiry within landscape heritage research. Landsc. Res., 49(1): 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2023.2237432

Gaire, D. 2012. An assessment of community-based biodiversity conservation and rural livelihood improvement in the Buffer Zone of Bardia National Park, Nepal. Bangkok, FAO.

Griffioen, J. 2023. Progress report Save the Tiger! Save the Grasslands! Save the Water! Nijmegen, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, University of Utrecht.

Harteveld, C., Guimarães, R., Mayer, I. S. & Bidarra, R. 2010. Balancing Play, Meaning and Reality: The Design Philosophy of LEVEE PATROLLER. Simulation & Gaming, 41(3): 316–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108331237

Jean, S., Medema, W., Adamowski, J., Chew, C., Delaney, P. & Wals, A. 2018. Serious games as a catalyst for boundary crossing, collaboration and knowledge co-creation in a watershed governance context. J. Environ. Manag., 223: 1010–1022. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.021.

Kasim, K., Witteveen, L., Sirajuddin, Z., Durani, H. & Chavez-Tafur, J. 2016. Resilience: Touching a Colourful Sky: Breaking the Mould of Linear Models of Innovation and Creating Innovative Learning Spaces for Social Change of Resilient Small Scale Farmers. Journal of Culture, Society and Development, 18.

LeClerq, A. T., Gore, M. L., Lopez, M. C. & Kerr, J. M. 2019. Local perceptions of conservation objectives in an alternative livelihoods program outside Bardia National Park, Nepal. Conserv. Sci. Pract., 1(12), id. e131. doi: 10.1111/csp2.131

Leeuwis, C. & Aarts, N. 2011. Rethinking Communication in Innovation Processes: Creating Space for Change in Complex Systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1): 21–36.

Mishra, M. & Ottoway Jr., J. 2013. Bones of the tiger. Protecting the Man-Eaters of Nepal. Penguin Random House India.

Müller-Böker, U. 1991. Knowledge and evaluation of the environment in traditional societies of Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev., 11(2): 101–114.

National Trust for Nature Conservation. 2018. Annual Report (FY 2017/18): Bardia Conservation Program. Bardia, Nepal, National Trust for Nature Conservation-BCP.

National Trust for Nature Conservation. 2022. Annual Report 2022. Kathmandu, National Trust for Nature Conservation.

Ostrom, E. 2009. A General Framework for Analysing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939): 419–422.

Paudyal, N. P. 2016. Livelihood in Buffer Zone: A Study of Park-People Interface in Bardia National Park, Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Tribhuvan University of Nepal.

Rijke, J., Witteveen, L. & Fliervoet, J. 2024. Towards landscape stewardship through art and reasoning. Unpublished manuscript.

Rodela, R., Ligtenberg, A. & Bosma, R. H. 2019. Conceptualizing Serious Games as a Learning-Based Intervention in the Context of Natural Resources and Environmental Governance. Water, 11(245). 10.3390/w11020245.

Roosmini, D., Witteveen, L., Mayangsari, I., Nastiti, A. & Botden, T. 2023. Social imaginaries methods and socio-engineering competences in sustainable river management (a case study in the living lab Upper Citarum). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1263. 012037. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/1263/1/012037

Shahi, K., Khanal, G., Jha, R. R., Bhusal, P. & Silwal, T. 2023. What drives local communities’ attitudes toward the protected area? Insights from Bardia National Park, Nepal. Conserv. Sci. Pract., 5(2): e12883.

Sharma, B., & Neupane, D. 2023. Enhancing human-tiger coexistence in forest corridors of Nepal through a socio-ecological approach to conservation. Trees, For. People, 13, September 2023, 100402 100402.

Soga, M., Gaston, K. 2018. Shifting baseline syndrome: Causes, consequences, and implications. Front. Ecol. Environ., 16(4): 222–230, doi: 10.1002/fee.1794.

Svasek, M. 2016. Introduction. Creativity and innovation in a world of movement. In: M. Svasek & B. Meyer, eds., Creativity in transition. Politics and aesthetics of cultural production across the globe. Oxford, Berghahn.

Thing, S., & Poudel, B. 2017. Buffer Zone Community Forestry in Nepal: Examining Tenure and Management Outcomes. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 15: 57–70. doi 10.3126/ jfl.v15i1.23096.

Van der Steen, M., van Twist, M. J. & Bressers, D. 2018. The Sedimentation of Public Values: How a Variety of Governance Perspectives Guide the Practical Actions of Civil Servants. Rev. Public Pers. Adm., 38(4): 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16671369

Wilder Nature. 2024. Human Wildlife Coexistence [video]. [Cited 7 June 2024]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbjv_nNNPhI

Witteveen, L., van Arensbergen, P. & Fliervoet, J. M. 2022. Design and Development of Mediated Participation for Environmental Governance Transformation: Experiences with Community Art and Visual Problem Appraisal. Cent. Eur. J. Commun., 15(1(30): 112–131. https://doi.org/10.51480/1899-5101.15.1(30).6

Witteveen, L., Eweg, R., Smits. A. & Voskamp-Harkema, W. 2016. Design principle for living lab’s aiming at sustainable development. The role of higher education in Living Lab’s. Conference presentation at Competence 2016 Wageningen, October 2016. Wageningen, Wageningen University & Research.

Witteveen L. & Den Boer, J. 2018. River Flows – An Artistic Approach Towards Community Resilience, Participation and Social Learning in Natural Resources Management. In: N. Carpentier, ed. Respublika! Experiments in the performance of participation and democracy. Limassol, Cyprus, NeMe.

WWF (World Wildlife Federation). 2024. Tigers: possibly the world’s most iconic big cat. https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/wildlife/tigers [Cited 28 June 2024].

[1] The project Save the Tigers! Save the Grasslands! Save the Water! is funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), under project number NWA.1292.19.146 and supported by the National Trust for Nature Conservation.

[2] The 2015 Constitution of Nepal established a federal structure consisting of a three-tiered governance system: the federal government, provincial governments and local bodies at the grassroots level. Accordingly, the country is divided into seven provinces: Koshi, Madhesh, Bagmati, Gandaki, Lumbini, Karnali and Sudurpaschim and there are 753 local government – 6 metropolitan cities, 11 sub-metropolitan cities, 276 municipalities and 460 rural municipalities.

[3] For more information on the development of the game, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QLFXpGMDa0

[4] The video is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbjv_nNNPhI

[5] For further information on the implementation of the poetry route strategy, see https://youtu.be/TKBOKTNZhcs and https://youtu.be/KY8gQjyADW4.

Chapter 9

Advancing innovation and social change: rural communication services and the multidimensional model for change

Authors:

Paolo Mefalopulos

Social and behavior change communication specialist

1. Rural communication services: framework and functions

This chapter seeks to describe how rural communication services (RCS) can be made more effective by linking and combining its operations and functions with the theoretical framework of the multidimensional model for change (MMC). To do this, it addresses some of the critical areas of RCS that have been highlighted in review studies, including the study Inclusive Rural Communication Services: Building Evidence, Informing Policy, conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the University of Queensland (2017). That study reviewed and assessed the planning, implementation and results of RCS interventions. While confirming their effectiveness, it suggested that RCS results could be improved by associating RCS interventions with a more integrated and systemic theoretical framework. This implies that, while communication plays an important role, it needs to have a constructivist epistemological perspective, where knowledge is constructed and agreed upon collectively and is rooted in a theoretical framework founded upon people’s participation in the process. The same study confirmed that while there is enough quantitative and qualitative evidence to indicate that RCS are an effective communication approach to support rural communities, it is difficult to account for their longer-term impact and sustainability. In response to these possible limitations of RCS, this chapter links RCS to the systemic approach of MMC,[1] which has a solid focus on policy and on institutional and cultural dimensions. The linkage of these two approaches could make RCS planning and evaluation more rigorous and applicable in a non-linear manner.[2]

According to the FAO definition (2017), RCS can be conceived as a wide range of communication tools, techniques, media and methods characterized mainly by two-way communication to support and enhance rural livelihoods. These elements of RCS are predominantly demand-driven and aim to promote rural stakeholders’ participation and engagement in the communication processes affecting decisions about their livelihoods. The RCS framework developed by FAO (2024a) aims to highlight and promote the potential and capabilities of family farmers as agents of change.

Viewed from this perspective, RCS should be considered a means to an end; the ultimate goal being to empower farmers and improve rural livelihoods. To achieve the objectives needed to improve rural livelihoods, usually closely related to the Sustainable Development Goals, RCS must operate in a systemic and non-linear way; quite different to the methodological approach of traditional programme theory, which usually reflects a linear causal chain of events, represented by: what (happens)/if (we intervene this way).

This linear approach, associated with the logic model family, is seldom able to represent adequately the complexity of reality and leads to planning and assessing in sectoral silos. This has often proven inadequate, as root causes of issues in one sector are often interrelated with those of other sectors. For instance, low attendance in rural schools is often due to several factors unrelated to the education sector. Although school infrastructure, educational curricula, teacher availability and capacities play an important part; financial considerations, local cultural norms, food availability, health considerations and transportation availability may also play an important role. These are factors that cannot be addressed solely by the education ministries or other authorities in the education sector.

Hence, before determining how to enhance the functions of RCS, it is necessary to define and assess the conceptual framework within which RCS are expected to occur in rural settings. Such a framework must entail a coherent and systemic focus at different levels and dimensions. Each dimension is needed to ensure that an environment conducive to change exists for all the relevant elements required to promote change and innovation and, thus, to improve rural livelihoods. To achieve this, RCS calls for a negotiated approach, where participatory channels, services and strategies are agreed upon by all stakeholders. Any improvement requires a change, which could be the adoption of an innovation or the change of a cultural norm or of a specific practice. This, in turn, always implies change in individual behaviour, which is not easy to achieve. To be sustainable, change must be owned and adopted collectively by a significant number of people, after which it often must also be institutionalized.

Along the same lines, any objective related to rural livelihoods, agriculture or food-related innovations requires communication in order to be explored, assessed, disseminated and adopted in an inclusive and participatory manner. In other words, inclusive RCS are required to help reduce inequalities and the exclusion of vulnerable groups. The central concept of communication in RCS, thus, is not the traditional one-way vertical model but rather the two-way horizontal approach that has gained ground in the last decades and that was explicitly outlined in the World Congress of Communication for Development and came to be known as the Rome Consensus, defining it as:

a social process based on dialogue that uses a broad range of tools and methods. It seeks change at different levels including listening, building trust, sharing knowledge and skills, building policies, debating, and learning for sustained and meaningful change. At the heart of Communication for Development is participation and ownership by those most affected by poverty and other development issues (cited in Mefalopulos, 2008, p. 228).

2. The multidimensional model for change

This definition not only confirms the importance of communication as a process that engages all stakeholders, but it also reaffirms the need to apply communication processes to focus on, engage and empower the most marginalized and vulnerable stakeholders. Rural communication services are fully aligned with such a conception. Still, their effectiveness is limited by the lack of a rigorous theoretical framework that can enhance and systemize their implementation. The MMC can provide this needed framework, beginning with the assessment of the problem or situation that needs to be changed to benefit the stakeholders involved (Mefalopulos, 2021). The MMC has been developed and used in situations where multisectoral changes were needed to achieve the intended outcome.

It can also be used in rural settings, making sure to adopt RCS within its conceptual framework to successfully implement the needed change at the community level.

The MMC relies on four dimensions. Three are context-related – public policy, institutional and sociocultural. The fourth dimension is the individual, where the change in the behaviour or practice must be adopted. Each dimension identifies basic elements that must be carefully reviewed and considered when assessing, formulating and planning strategies to promote change. The public-policy dimension relates to all aspects that fall under the responsibility of the national legislation, not only laws, but also the infrastructure and budget needed to ensure that what is being approved in the legislation can be adopted in practice. For instance, if a law mandates that lavatories be installed in restaurants and public places in order to eliminate urination in the open, the national budget must have the needed allocation to build lavatories in all public places of relevance, including schools, hospitals and city halls. The institutional dimension is concerned with identifying and assessing the mandate and capacity of public institutions, civil society organizations, faith-based organizations, academic institutions and private-sector alliances in the area related to the intended change. After identifying the institutions and organizations that can be engaged to promote the change, their needs and capacities must be identified to determine whether institutional strengthening is needed before devising the change strategy. Regarding the sociocultural dimension, the norms and beliefs of the community[3] that must embrace change must be assessed to see if they are compatible with the change or if there are barriers to the needed change. Stakeholders’ expectations must be investigated, analysed and aligned with the expected objectives (which must be established in a participatory manner). The assessment and eventual decisions related to the change must be carried out in a participatory manner. Identifying the community’s influential networks that might inform and win over people who need to change or adopt an innovation is also important.

The last dimension is that of the individual. It is at this dimension where behaviour needs to be changed or innovations adopted. The approach within this dimension is similar to the approaches used for quite some time: awareness raising, the dissemination of information to increase valuable knowledge, knowledge sharing through influential sources, dialogue-based conversations, innovation training, etc. The difference, however, is that systematic attention is given to the environmental setting, ensuring that significant conditions required to facilitate the intended change are in place.

It is essential to highlight the importance of participatory approaches in investigating and defining the intended change. Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal (PRCA) is the recommended approach to be adopted for this purpose. Participatory Action Research is also an effective methodology since it combines theory and practice (Melkote and Steeves, 2021).

Two examples of rural initiatives can be examined to illustrate how MMC can make RCS assessment, planning and evaluation more effective. These examples, both from Africa, have to do with innovations aimed at enhancing the marketing potential of agricultural products to improve the livelihoods of farmers and their families. The first example is a case in Zimbabwe (Anyaegbunam, Mefalopulos, and Moetsabi, 2004) where the Ministry of Rural Development, after having conducted a diagnosis, decided to adopt an irrigation scheme to help a farming community switch from the staple crops they were growing primarily for their own consumption, to more financially lucrative crops that could be sold in markets. The good intentions of the ministry advisors did not achieve the intended outcome due to the lack of several components needed to ensure the success of the initiative: sufficient farmers’ knowledge regarding the new crop, market information (such as the best time to sell), regular transportation to transport the harvest to the markets, consistent availability of the seeds, and confidence in the potential success of the switch. Deficiency in all these areas led to the failure of the initiative.

The other case, from Ghana (FAO, 2024b), involved the use of RCS, which led to more effective adoption of innovative market approaches. Thanks to the availability of advanced information technology, such as the internet, farmers were able to rely on real-time information, which was critical to enhancing their financial knowledge of the markets. E-services guaranteed that farmers could access information about crop prices in different markets at different times, enabling them to define the best selling strategies. In this case, farmers also had the support of a call centre where they could seek advice on all issues related to their crops, including weather conditions, pest management and other relevant matters.

3. Applying rural communication services in the multidimensional model for change

These examples provide a real context within which to consider how RCS could be enhanced by applying it within a theory-rooted model such as the MMC. For this analysis, we will assume that the new crop is financially valuable and able to enhance rural livelihoods and that it should be adopted by the community. That means that relevant stakeholders have determined and agreed, usually through the application of RCS, that it is beneficial to initiate and promote the sale of their products to new markets. At this point, an assessment of the dimensions of the MMC should be carried out, and RCS should fulfil the various communication functions, as needed.

In the public-policy dimension, several issues should be assessed, such as the laws governing free access to internet services, the availability of internet connection in the areas of intervention and the financial resources needed to ensure these types of services. Specifically, legislation and public policy should: ensure that connectivity is made available in rural areas, monitor prices to ensure that fair prices are applied (and prevent speculation by more prominent actors), facilitate loan schemes to ensure that farmers can buy seeds and fertilizers, and facilitate transport to bring products to the most convenient markets. The main communication function here would be to advocate before policymakers and decision-makers about the necessary legislation, policies and budget allocation.

In the institutional dimension, the first step would be to map all available and relevant institutions, organizations and other potential allies related to the community of interest and the innovation or change being promoted. Once the mapping has been completed, each of the mandates and capacities of the institutions and organizations identified should be reviewed and assessed to identify which institutional capacities (technical, delivery, etc.) needed to support the intended change may need to be strengthened. These institutions and organizations are vital in facilitating the intended change. The relevant institutions and organizations will need to fulfil certain communication functions to establish a conducive environment for the intended behaviour change. In this dimension, communication should mainly facilitate dialogue among the various entities and strengthen their capacities in RCS. The Ghana case study provides good insights into how communication can help establish a conducive environment at the systemic level. Where RCS has identified gaps (using PRCA, for example) related to the innovation of growing new, more marketable crops, action needs to be taken, such as: ensuring that all field officers of the ministry of agriculture can provide information and support on how to harvest the new crop and sell it to markets, engaging NGOs in the area to assist farmers, or building an alliance with private-sector representatives to enhance farmers’ financial skills and options.

The sociocultural dimension is probably the most important dimension in facilitating the adoption of the behaviour change within the individual dimension. It requires knowing and understanding the cultural norms, beliefs and practices that shape the behaviours related to the intended change. If cultural norms enhance the change, they should be further promoted, whereas if they make the change difficult, they should be addressed, eliminated or modified. This also requires identifying community networks and other sources of influence that can help to promote the adoption of the innovation or change. Several publications, including the insightful book by Tina Rosenberg, Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World (2011), have shown that peer pressure is one of the most effective means to promote behaviour change at all levels, ages and genders. In our examples, cultural norms may exist that value collective action. RCS should communicate and disseminate those norms, leveraging the advantage of acting collectively in deciding where and how to sell agricultural products. On the other hand, if a norm would impede the adoption of the innovation, RCS should be used to mitigate its impact. For instance, if there is a cultural belief that a particular (traditional) crop brings protection and food security to the community, RCS should apply dialogue to help the community assess the potential benefits of adopting a new crop that might bring financial benefits to the community, one that could complement the traditional one, rather than requiring a complete switch. Dialogue is necessary because traditional practices and beliefs are often based on local knowledge for a reason. For instance, in one instance, the farmers of an African community refused to follow the instructions provided by the technical authorities of the ministry linked to the introduction of a new crop (Anyaegbunam et al., 2004). They were told to plant their seeds in rows approximately 20 cm from each other. Experiments in the lab showed that this simple innovation would greatly benefit productivity. However, farmers refused to adopt this practice and continued their traditional method of widely and randomly broadcasting seeds. A PRCA was conducted, showing that the motive for their refusal was not unreasonable. In fact, it was smart. There were a lot of rodents in the area and when the farmers planted their seeds in rows, the rodents would soon discover the pattern and most of the crop would be lost. The two-way communication in the PRCA methodology was the key element to discovering this and ensuring that the best option was identified and adopted. The book, People, Land and Water, edited by Guy Bessette (2006), provides many examples of the critical role of two-way communication in rural development initiatives. Another example of this is an initiative in Malawi (Kamlongera and Kaumba, 2006) that aimed to alleviate poverty. The focus of this initiative was on improving the communication skills of extensionists to engage in dialogue and knowledge-exchange with rural stakeholders, thus contributing to their empowerment and the improvement of their living conditions.

Finally, once the key elements in each of the three dimensions defining the context have been assessed and addressed, the focus can shift to the elements required to promote the behaviour change at the individual level. The communication methods, tools and techniques needed to promote the adoption of an innovation or a new behaviour are described extensively in many publications by FAO and others. Raising awareness, increasing knowledge, promoting new attitudes, and enhancing or shifting norms are the objectives that RCS can promote in this dimension. In the examples analysed here, RCS should be implemented to ensure that all farmers are familiar with the information technologies that are part of the intervention and understand how they can be used to their advantage. RCS should also be used establish points where farmers can access the information they need. In the case of Ghana, a private company partnered with public and private organizations to provide agricultural and economic information. The project also established a helpline where farmers could easily access information on weather, agronomy, pest management and market-related issues.

A wide range of RCS methods, tools and media can be adopted to promote change at the individual level. It is crucial to ensure that the main mode of communication is dialogical, where communication flows among relevant stakeholders, exchanging ideas and knowledge, and creating new knowledge. In the examples provided here, RCS can be used to engage individual stakeholders to adopt new crops and enter new markets that can provide financial sustainability. This can be achieved through meetings with influential persons, sharing information through mass- and social-media channels, and community work carried out by field officers and members of relevant organizations. Some farmers might also need to acquire basic knowledge of the markets, which can be facilitated by relevant organizations in the field.

The RCS framework developed by FAO (2024a) defines the principles, approaches and strategy needed to achieve its goal of “enhanced capacity for informed decision-making and collective action by rural people” (p. 4). Once the dimensions of the MMC are brought into the application of RCS, the multiple functions of communication become more apparent and can be adapted more efficiently into a rural strategy. Table 1 is an adaptation of the table developed for the various dimensions of the MMC (Mefalopulos, 2021), complemented by the communication functions of RCS. It shows the area where the MMC dimensions and the RCS functions intersect to provide rigour in organizing the elements needed to be assessed to develop the most effective plan to achieve change.

Rural communication services are key to communicating, engaging and empowering stakeholders involved in innovations, but it is important to understand that different types of communication address different audiences. Thus, different communication modalities and methods should be adopted to achieve different objectives. It is also essential to understand that to address and promote behaviour change at the individual level, a conducive environment is necessary, which is made possible by addressing the gaps in each of the three contextual dimensions shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Multidimensional model for change and rural communication services

Dimensions of the multidimensional model for change

Components (and what needs to assessed)

Main functions of rural communication services

Public policy

Legislation/laws: policies or laws that should be in place to promote the adoption of the change
Budget/resources: budget and resources needed to facilitate the adoption of the change
Infrastructure: infrastructure needed to support the adoption of the change

- > Advocacy with key policymakers and decision-makers

- > Mobilize community support to advocate for needed change at the level of public policy

Institutional / organizational

State/public institutions: assess the mandate and capacities of institutions to promote and support the adoption of the change
Civil society organizations: assess the mandate and capacities of institutions to promote and support the adoption of the change
Private sector: investigate and assessing potential alliances to promote the change
Other organizations/institutions: investigate and assessing potential alliances to promote the change

- > Establish/enhance communication and networking among different institutions

- > Institutional strengthening to enhance the communication capacities of institutions involved in promoting the change

Sociocultural

Norms: identify the beliefs, norms and habits that facilitate or impede the adoption of the change
Community: engaging the community stakeholders with the change, identify main networks (formal and informal) related to the change.
Media: which media are prevalent and how are they positioned in relation to the change

- > Participatory rural communication appraisal

- > Raise awareness and increase knowledge

- > Community mobilization

- > Peer-group conversation

Individual

Influential sources: identify individuals/entities who can influence stakeholders to embrace the change, within the family circle and the community
Awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and practices: identify the level that needs to be addressed individually

- > Information sharing/dissemination

- > Participatory message design and dissemination

- > Dialogue-based conversation

- > Media campaigns

Source: Author’s own elaboration with dimensions of MMC adapted from Mefalopulos, P. 2021. Multidimensional Model for Change: A Comprehensive C4D-Based Framework for Sustainable Development. In: S.R. Melkote & A. Singhal, eds. Handbook of Communication and Development. Massachusetts, Elgar Publishing.

4. Conclusions

Evidence has indicated that RCS have effectively established open lines of interaction among stakeholders, thus contributing to better results and enhanced rural livelihoods. Nevertheless, when rooted in a theoretical framework such as the MMC, the effectiveness of RCS is significantly enhanced. The RCS functions which should be implemented in each case are determined from the dimension in which the communication intervention or activity occurs and its objective. Pairing the change to be achieved to the associated communication function in the specific dimension helps organize the RCS strategy rigorously. In presenting, combining and discussing the main features of the MMC and RCS, this chapter bridges the theory of a systemic perspective with the practice of applied communication, demonstrating how the two approaches complement each other, enhance their respective strengths, and limit their weaknesses. It also highlights the importance of strongly connecting theory and practice. MMC provides the theoretical mapping needed to identify and address gaps, challenges and problems, while RCS offers the methods and tools needed to address and engage stakeholders in rural communities. When applied in a complementary and strategic manner, these two approaches help to ensure that change is both inclusive and sustainable.

References

Anyaegbunam, C., Mefalopulos, P. & Moetsabi, T. 2004. Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal: A handbook. 2nd edition. Rome, FAO and SADC.

Kamlongera, C. & Kaumba, J. 2006. Implementing Isang BagSak in East and Southern Africa. In G. Bessette, ed. People, Land and Water. Sterling, Earthscan, IDRC (International Development Research Centre).

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

FAO. 2014. Communication for Rural Development Sourcebook. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0060b190-ab2d-4a05-9550-f07dbd16663b/content

FAO. 2024a. Rural Communication Services for Family Farming – Results of a global forum. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2c06bb8e-a174-438f-846d-9b3b2925256f/content

FAO. 2024b. Transforming Rural Africa: Trends and Experiences in Rural Communication Services. Rome.

FAO & University of Queensland. 2017. Inclusive Rural Communication Services: Building Evidence, Informing Policy. Rome.

Mefalopulos, P. 2008. Development Communication Sourcebook: Broadening the Boundaries of Communication. Washington, DC,: The World Bank.

Mefalopulos, P. 2021. Multidimensional Model for Change: A Comprehensive C4D-Based Framework for Sustainable Development. In: S.R. Melkote & A. Singhal, eds. Handbook of Communication and Development. Massachusetts, Elgar Publishing.

Melkote, S.R. & Steeves, H.L. 2021. Communication and Development: Participatory Action Research and Practice for Social Justice. In: S.R. Melkote & A. Singhal, eds. Handbook of Communication and Development. Massachusetts, Elgar Publishing.

Rosenberg, T. 2011. Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World. New York, W. W. Norton & Co.

[1] The multidimensional model for change is derived from two influential approaches. The first is Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal (PRCA), first developed in the 1990s by Anyaegunam, Mefalopulos and Moetsabi (2004) in an FAO project in Zimbabwe. This methodology combines communication research and planning with participatory methods, ensuring stakeholders are involved throughout the decision-making process. The second is the Social Ecological Model, originally developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), which in this case, has been adapted into three context-related dimensions and an individual one, where behaviour change is expected to occur.

[2] “Systemic” and “non-linear” refer to an approach that is intersectoral and does not follow the vertical logic of programme theory.

[3] Community here is to be understood in the widest conception, which could be a local community, a community at a national level, or a community of practice of stakeholders with similar needs and opportunities.

PART III.

Enabling rural communication services: community efforts and conducive policies

Overview

Community mobilization and engagement, advocacy and policy dialogue are essential elements to promote conducive policies for inclusive RCS. Frequently, the needs of the agriculture and rural-development sectors are not adequately considered by the national telecommunications and media regulatory frameworks. It is often thanks to local efforts that new types of community-based communication services are piloted and promote change in the policy environment. It is very important, therefore, to analyse and value these bottom-up policy processes and their implications to operationalize inclusive RCS.

Chapters 10 through 12 describe experiences in Argentina, Kenya and Mexico in the appropriation of media and technologies, the creation of community networks and the adoption of regulatory frameworks and conducive policies. The chapters refer to a growing trend of small-scale, locally managed community networks that are bridging the communication and digital divide affecting communities in rural areas and supporting local development initiatives. Community networks utilize Wi-Fi (through hotspots), mobile telephone services, and media such as radio and television, and connect the “last mile”, ensuring access to communication services, especially in rural areas.

The case studies set out the evolution and functioning of community networks that were developed thanks to the efforts of civil society organizations and communication entities to serve family farmers, Indigenous Communities and peri-urban neighbourhoods inhabited by migrants from the rural areas. Small-scale and locally managed community-based network services are increasing in number worldwide but require legal recognition and licences, as well as financial support to be able to deliver low-cost services to marginalized populations. These efforts can take advantage of conducive policies in the telecommunications sector and leverage universal service funds (USF) established to ensure that telecommunications services are accessible to underserved communities at affordable prices. The chapters in Part III report on experiences in linking local appropriations with the policy and regulatory frameworks in the struggle to enable inclusive rural communication services.

Changes in the community-networks framework in Kenya’s telecommunications policy are analysed in Chapter 10. The new framework recognizes the role of local service providers in building better connectivity in remote areas. This has been the result of advocacy efforts of civil society organizations and communities – efforts that are still ongoing thanks to a well-organized community-networks movement that seeks to ensure the sustainability of the changes achieved.

Chapter 11 illustrates different changes that took place over the last 13 years in Argentina’s telecommunications policy regime. It also refers to the struggle of communities, cooperatives and activists working towards alternative communication options, especially in rural and remote areas of the country and in urban informal settlements, resulting in the first regulation regarding the use of USF for community networks.

The case of Mexico, described in Chapter 12, presents an example of how community owned networks emerged, taking advantage of favourable regulations related to Indigenous People’s rights to communication services, which evolved into more complex and multilayered policies. Case studies of community owned networks in Oaxaca and Puebla demonstrate the importance of community connectivity and provide perspectives regarding the use of local networks. The chapter ends by considering the trends in the telecommunications sector and their implications for the future of rural development in Mexico.

Chapter 10

Kenya: community networks framework for rural communication services

Authors:

Seán Ó Siochrú

Nexus Research Cooperative

Kathleen Diga

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Carlos Rey-Moreno

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Steve Song

Digital Understorey

Josephine Miliza

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

1. Introduction

This chapter describes the latest developments in the community networks framework in Kenya and its respective implementation. The intent of the new framework is to expand opportunities for smaller providers to mobilize and connect communities to the internet within the legal framework, thereby improving rural connectivity. The chapter begins by describing some of the historical policy changes over the last fifteen years, which established the basis for the framework and then describes the advocacy efforts of civil society organizations and grassroots communities to contribute to the changes. The chapter also describes a number of community networks in Kenya that are working to implement the licensing process within the new framework. Finally, the chapter concludes with the ongoing advocacy efforts needed to ensure continuity and support for communities now embarking on this newest phase of building community networks, and to ensure the availability of the resources to needed for their sustainability.

2. Building an enabling environment

By the mid-1990s, Kenya had made significant progress in building its communications infrastructure and extending access, especially to rural areas – a precondition for the development of community-owned networks. This section provides insights into the development of the telecommunications policy regime in Kenya, including the creation of the Communications Authority of Kenya, the establishment of the Universal Service Fund, and the assignment of spectrum. The section then describes the initial civil society efforts advocating for policy proposals that would accelerate rural connectivity, especially during the time of COVID-19. Finally, the section addresses the launch of the community-networks framework in 2021 and some of the experiences of its initial implementation from 2021 to 2024.

Preconditions to expanding rural communication

The telecommunications sector in Kenya is regulated by the Communications Authority of Kenya, which was established in 1999 through the Kenya Information and Communications Act. In 2012, the Communications Authority introduced the Unified Licensing Framework (ULF), which contributed greatly to shaping and growing the activities in the sector. Within the ULF, the Communications Authority operates a three-tier license structure for network facilities providers. The license structure is based on geographic deployment: Tier 1 licensees are authorized to develop any communications infrastructure within the national territory; Tier 2 licensees have the same rights, but at the regional level; and Tier 3 licensees can deploy infrastructure at the county level. Since the introduction of the framework, the number of licenses issued at all three tiers has grown consistently. (Operators holding network facilities provider licenses are also required to obtain an application service provider or content service provider license in order to provide services to consumers.)

Other important changes in the communications policy regime that established the conditions necessary for expanding rural communication were the creation of the Universal Service Fund (USF) and the launch and implementation of the National Broadband Strategy. In 2009, the Communications Authority established the USF, which was funded through a universal service tax levied on licensed operators. The USF was designed to direct infrastructure investments towards access in underserved and unserved areas. From 2013 to 2017, the Communications Authority launched and implemented the first National Broadband Strategy, connecting every county to a national fibre backbone.

Prior to 2020, assignment of International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) spectrum remained with national-level licensees, with the prime mobile telephony ranges (800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2100 MHz) assigned to the major operators: Airtel, Safaricom and Telkom Kenya. In accordance with the provisions of the ULF, these national-level operators pay relatively high license fees for IMT spectrum assignments, which grant them exclusive rights to specific frequencies at the national level. All three operators have seen consistent growth in subscriptions since the late 1990s. In 2018, 6.5 percent of the government’s total tax revenue came from the mobile phone sector (GSMA, 2020), underscoring a heavy reliance on the sector and interest on the part of the government in the continuation of the income from the licensing fees.[1] Given that the national operators focus on mobile infrastructure deployment in the more profitable, populated areas, the spectrum often remains unused in rural areas, despite being assigned to operators.

It is worth noting that Kenya (along with South Africa) was a pioneer in Africa in undertaking a successful trial period in the use of TV white space (TVWS) spectrum, starting in 2013. By May 2021, the telecommunications regulator had approved a framework for TVWS implementation (Developing Telecoms, 2021). TVWS has significant potential to enable the development of low-cost backhaul broadband over difficult terrain and to remote areas, although uptake to date has been very limited.

By 2020, the ITU reported a 30 percent adoption rate of internet subscribers (ITU, 2021) and 47 percent mobile broadband subscriptions at the national level (though the latter may be an overestimation due to some users using multiple SIM cards for their mobile phones) (ITU, 2021). Despite this important progress in the telecommunications sector, major challenges remained (and remain still) for connecting rural and remote areas in Kenya. In the 2000s, some communities that remained unreached by mobile coverage began stepping forward to develop their own community-oriented networks. Some registered to operate as local non-profit businesses and tried to fit within the existing regulatory frameworks, but found they faced major regulatory hurdles.

First, network facilities provider licenses and application service provider licenses were unavailable for geographic bases smaller than the county level. Therefore, grassroots communities would need to apply for the existing Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 licenses, all of which came with initial application costs and annual fees that were beyond the reach of the small aspiring operators.[2] The application process itself was also onerous, possibly requiring a visit to Nairobi to submit the application in person and requiring the submission of annual compliance reports and other conditions. As such, it is not surprising that even by 2020, a Tier 3 license had yet to be issued in 41 out of Kenya’s 47 counties. At the same time, there were numerous “grey market” or unregistered wireless internet service providers operating in different parts of Kenya.

The barriers to gaining access to licensed spectrum and to broadband backhaul in some remote areas, specifically for small-scale mobile telephony providers, were even higher. There was no possibility of accessing IMT spectrum at all at the local level, no regulatory provision for shared spectrum, and the TVWS pilot had not yet been operationalized within the existing framework. Broadband backhaul was also expensive and subject to a minimum-volume purchase established by backhaul providers.

Initial activity and recognition of community-owned networks

Despite these obstacles, Kenya has seen significant activity in community networks in the last decade, paving the way for future developments.

In 2016 and 2017 (Internet Society, 2016, 2017), the Internet Society and the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) partnered with others to organize the first and second African Community Networks summits in Kenya. These events had a catalytic impact in Kenya. Those who participated in the summits began to address the skill and capacity shortcomings of those seeking to build community networks. Prior to the summits, nascent community networks, often supported by grants, were just beginning to emerge, using unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum. Before the summit, for instance, Tunapanda Institute, a non-profit social enterprise, launched a pilot community network in Kibera, an informal settlement in central Nairobi, initially with support from the Internet Society.

There is also evidence that, by 2018, lobbying for supportive policy for small-scale operators in the telecommunications sector by several civil society organizations was beginning to pay off. Organizations advocating for change included the APC, the World Wide Web Foundation’s Alliance for Affordable Internet, KICTANet, Article 19, Tunapanda Institute and the Internet Society. A significant milestone of change in the telecommunications policy was that the National Broadband Strategy 2018–2023, launched by the Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology, included, for the first time, a “bottom-up local community model” (Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology, 2019, p. 57) as one of four possible investment models.

Lobbying has continued since the launch of the strategy, and in recent years efforts by advocacy organizations have begun to translate into advanced policy developments.

Breakthrough in policy and regulatory environment

In May 2021, a major breakthrough occurred with the announcement by the Communications Authority of the Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks (Communications Authority of Kenya, 2021a). The significance and potential of this comprehensive framework is difficult to overstate. The framework explicitly recognizes the role of community networks in reaching remote, sparsely populated areas and low-income areas. It proposes a plan of action to realize the potential of community networks to offer affordable communications infrastructure. The framework also covers various aspects: from issuing licences through releasing spectrum to licensed community networks. The creation of the framework also marks the first time the ULF was amended outside the context of the usual ten-year review process.

With regard to licensing, the framework’s plan of action establishes a new license category within the ULF – that of a Community Network Service Provider (CNSP). The CNSP category includes licensing and administrative requirements that are manageable for smaller, resource-constrained entities. CNSP licenses may only be issued to legally-distinct entities registered as either community-based organizations (CBOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Both CBOs and NGOs have the broader aims of serving their community constituencies and encouraging community participation in their governance and operation. In terms of geographic region, CNSP licenses are limited to subcounties, but have no limitations regarding the size of the population served. The initial license fee is KES 5 000 (approximately EUR 40), with a similar annual fee. There is also the possibility for some licensees to receive a fee waiver for access to “lightly-licensed and license-exempt frequency bands”, although this has yet to be operationalized.

With regard to spectrum, the framework’s plan of action, in the licence-exempt spectrum section, promises to enable greater access to new licensees to the 2.4 and 5 GHz range for point-to-point use (critical to building Wi-Fi networks). The framework also mentions the expansion of frequencies in the 5 to 6 GHz range and the review of the current power limits to enable further reach in rural areas.

The framework also addresses TVWS, which would be a useful set of frequencies for backhaul, especially in areas of complex terrain. Specifically, the use of TVWS for intermediary backhaul (between the local access network and the fibre backbone, for example) has the advantage over other options of offering non-line-of-sight access, capable of covering long distances and difficult terrain in rural areas. The plan of action envisages the availability of a geolocation database service, to enable the Communications Authority to effectively assign and monitor access to this spectrum.

In relation to enabling access for community networks to the IMT spectrum, the framework offers four specific options:

- > setting aside a small portion of the national or regional IMT frequency band for affordable access in rural areas, as is seen in Mexico;

- > a “Use it or Share it” spectrum mechanism whereby nationally licensed IMT spectrum held by national operators that remains unutilized, especially in rural areas, would be made available for sublicensing by the regulator;

- > localized IMT spectrum licenses, providing specific frequencies within a small geographic area for use by community networks to offer 4G or long-term evolution (LTE) fixed wireless or access networks, but with no external roaming or voice interconnection with other mobile networks;

- > dynamic assignment of frequencies via a geolocation database (essentially, the same principle implemented for TVWS), which would enable community networks to access IMT spectrum held by national mobile operators, especially in rural areas where national license holders have no declared intention of deploying networks.

In the medium term, the plan envisages:

- > developing a shared spectrum framework, including action steps for the utilization of underutilized spectrum bands;

- > establishing a “regulatory sandbox”’ (that is, a secure place for testing) for localized experimental access to unassigned LTE spectrum in specific locations;

- > reviewing the spectrum fee framework, with the aim of reducing fees for license holders based in underserved and rural areas.

In regards to fibre optic internet, in the medium term, the plan would also require fibre-optic network operators to publish a standard reference access offer to enhance access, transparency and non-discrimination in their backhaul offerings.

All in all, this framework represents an ambitious plan within the telecommunications space in Kenya to significantly increase access to communication services in rural areas, and its full implementation would have enormous implications for the community networks sector, particularly in rural areas.

Framework implementation to date

Since the publication of the Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks in May 2021, a number of steps have been taken to implement the framework. In November 2021, the Communications Authority published the CNSP license application form, which included the reduced fee schedule (Communications Authority of Kenya, 2021b).[3] Although the form requires some administrative effort to complete (including submitting a business plan), at the time of writing, several community network representatives who are currently engaged in the process have indicated that they feel that it is manageable.

The Communications Authority is currently reviewing and amending the power limits for 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Wi-Fi for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint use. Work is also underway to review options for lowering the barrier to the use of other license-exempt bands for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint use, including 24 GHz and 60 GHz. The Communications Authority is also considering expanding the range of frequencies available for license-exempt use, especially in the lower 6 GHz band.

With regard to TWVS, in April 2021, before the launch of the framework, the Communications Authority approved moving forward with this option, and in November 2021, approved the appointment of a commercial dynamic spectrum database operator.[4] However, further steps are required for this option to become feasible. Since the capital and operational costs of TVWS equipment is more than twice that of a Wi-Fi point-to-point, TVWS is useful only in certain circumstances, but it is hoped that the option will become available.

Progress in the area of IMT spectrum and licensed spectrum revisions generally, was always going to be the biggest challenge. Lack of progress with IMT spectrum sharing may be the result of opposition from incumbent IMT spectrum licensees to any spectrum-sharing option that might compromise the competitive advantage they enjoy as a result of their exclusive access to IMT frequencies.

According to a Communications Authority official, the horizon for the regulatory sandbox for localized spectrum and for a dynamic spectrum access framework has been pushed from the medium term (initially envisaged to be operational within 12 months after the framework adoption) to long term (with a horizon of up to two years). The full implementation of TVWS regulations awaits the operationalization of a commercial geolocation database provider in Kenya.

Review of the Universal Service Fund

A second opportunity to influence Kenyan policy and regulation to enable community networks arose in 2021, with the review of the Universal Service Fund.

Over the years, a considerable amount of money had built up in the fund, and much of it was to be disbursed to the mobile phone operators to provide or improve services in unserved and underserved areas. A Communications Authority official conceded that, even with a significant USF investment, the major operators did not always prioritize the provision and maintenance of quality communication services in these areas. The Communications Authority had already signalled an intention to include community networks in the USF. As stated in the USF document, Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks:

Community networks require comparatively modest sums of money to get started and a small grants program initiated by the USF could kickstart new community networks. The authority will explore establishing a subsidy for start-up funds for community networks, under special projects, to help catalyse initiative from communities to develop locally-owned connectivity solutions (Communications Authority of Kenya, 2021a, p. 49).

The USF review would have to develop concrete proposals in order to align the framework to this statement. To this end, the Communications Authority engaged a local consulting company to prepare a background paper on the USF, recommending an operating plan for a reformed USF for the next five-year cycle (Communications Authority of Kenya, 2022a). The final draft paper was to be submitted and published in April 2022. The APC submitted inputs to the consulting team, outlining a rationale for the inclusion of community networks and providing specific proposals. The inputs drew from global community-network experiences and provided recommendations on the kind of USF investments that might be effective. At the time of writing, community networks were included in the revised USF strategic plan and the draft plan has been published (Communications Authority of Kenya, 2022b). The final plan is expected to be approved by 2026.

The developments described in this section demonstrate that the regulatory environment in Kenya is providing strong indications of support to communities and civil society seeking a change or opportunities in the telecommunications approach that could potentially benefit the expansion of rural communication services.

3. Community networks on the ground

The community networks movement in Kenya began with just a few dispersed entities (both registered and unregistered) working for affordable internet connectivity in both urban informal settlements and rural areas. This group of entities eventually grew and coalesced into the Association for Community Networks in Kenya. This section takes a look at a particular entity which has contributed substantially to the movement, as well as developing a comprehensive offering of technology and communications-related educational programmes and services for their grassroots community – Tunapanda Institute.[5]

Tunapanda Institute is a non-profit social enterprise based in the informal settlement of Kibera, in Nairobi. Its overall goal is to “create environments and experiences that train lifelong learners, earners, and problem-solvers” (Tunapanda Institute, n.d.) among extremely low-income groups, with a focus on technology, design and business. Its activities include identifying new communities interested in developing community networks, raising awareness among relevant actors, research, convening stakeholders, training and mentorship, and helping to address policy and regulatory barriers at the community level. It employs about 20 people in several projects, including: Tech Dada, which works with schools to attract girls into technical and information and communication technologies (ICT) areas; the Kibera Aeronautical Space Academy (KASA), which focuses on the uses of space technology (such as imaging) in agriculture and other relevant areas; and Mobile LEAP, designed to train young people in a range of digital and related business skills. Another of its projects, created through various sources of grant funding, is a community network – TunapandaNET (recently registered under the new name TandaNet in order to comply with the latest Community Network Service Provider license regime), which was created to bring connectivity to various community stakeholders, such as schools and small businesses. TunapandaNET is now one of the major stakeholders in promoting community-owned networks in Kenya.

Building a movement from the ground

TunapandaNET began operating in 2020, with its team conducting research into community networks in Kenya. During the research process, six existing networks were identified, although one declined to be included in the research. After concluding the initial research, two additional entities were added, bringing the total number of community networks the organization works with and supports to seven.[6] In 2021, TunapandaNET collaborated with each community network to identify their strengths, weaknesses and challenges.

Also in 2021, the TunapandaNET team identified local technical experts and established an advisory committee to guide the work of developing a national training programme. The advisory committee has grown to include 11 key sector actors: Internet Society, KICTANet, Kenya Education Network Trust, Kenya Community Media Network, and seven representatives of those directly running community networks, including AFCHIX (an NGO and network of African women in technology) and the Arid Lands Information Network (ALIN). The advisory committee meets virtually each month in four community-of-practice groups: Community in Community Networks, Policy, Sustainability, and Network Infrastructure and Services, with the members of the advisory committee participating in the groups according to their areas of interest and expertise.

Based on the needs identified in the seven community networks, experts were contracted to work with the networks in biweekly mentorship sessions, many of which were delivered remotely. The community-of-practice groups were convened to share experiences and learnings with the community networks and experts. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings between TunapandaNET and the community networks were virtual for most of 2020 and 2021. The first in-person peer exchange meeting was hosted in Kilifi (home of the Dunia Moja Community Network) in December 2021, bringing together one representative from each community network and a number of experts.

The TunapandaNET team gradually began to develop a curriculum based on the research, assessments and advice from the advisory committee, and the in-person and online mentorship. The first Kenya National School of Community Networks convened from 28 February to 3 March 2022. Three persons from each of the seven community networks, as well as resource persons and trainers, attended the session. A further set of training activities was implemented later in 2022, which included four additional communities that committed to developing a community-owned network, bringing the total number of trained communities to 11.

Overall, TunapandaNET’s emphasis during this movement-building period has been on identifying, reaching out to and consolidating existing community networks in Kenya, as well as encouraging new ones when an interest is expressed. The advisory committee has played an important role throughout this period – contributing to the design of the training programme for the National School of Community Networks and helping to develop the learning materials, as well as supporting Tunapanda Institute in understanding the policy and governance context and mapping ICT stakeholders. In some cases, members of the advisory committee have also served as guest trainers in the training sessions. At the time of writing, most of the community networks are still at an early stage of development, and have some way to go before building appropriate communication services to the level they seek, including developing a secure user base and building up their community network with sustainable financial and institutional structures.

Expanding the movement

In addition to expanding the number of communities participating in the school to 11, further concrete actions have been taken to extend the community network movement. The Tunapanda Net team continues to reach out to existing ICT centres, youth organizations and other CBOs that already have roots within communities and are assessing their level of interest in partnering with them.

Key mechanisms and tools essential to enabling the establishment of new community networks are being put in place, specifically:

- > The Kenya National School for Community Networks curriculum and courses are fully developed and documented. The TunapandaNET team is ready to run it as the demand rises and resources become available.

- > The training materials and toolkits from the National School for Community Networks are being digitized, all of which are open source and can be hosted locally by any organization seeking to support or expand community networks.

- > An open-source e-learning platform, called Wikconnect, has been created for learning and sharing.

The TunapandaNET team is also working on practical tools to address specific challenges of community networks. One challenge that is being tackled is the development of an open-source hotspot management tool that enables payment using mobile money services, such as M-PESA.

Another development, which is being facilitated and encouraged by Tunapanda Institute and which will have major implications for the future of community networks, is the creation of the Association of Community Networks in Kenya. This collective is bringing together existing networks to exchange information and support, enhance their bargaining power, and lobby for further policy and regulatory developments. It may also have a role in future activations of the National School for Community Networks.

Community networks and their approach to sustainability

Key features of community networks

All community networks in Kenya are Wi-Fi-based internet service providers (ISPs) focusing on marginalized communities. In most cases, community networks offer primarily internet and/or intranet access at affordable prices (or free) to individuals, institutions and other entities in the local community. None of the community networks in the country currently offer mobile telephony, nor do they have immediate plans to do so.

In terms of the sponsoring or parent entities of the country’s community networks, most were already involved in other development-related activities. For example, ALIN (which supported the establishment of the Ng’arua Maarifa ICT hub) and Community Initiative Support Services (associated with the community network project of aherinet) pursue development-related goals within the local communities that are well beyond those related to ICT or community networks. Tunapanda Institute, AFCHIX and AHERI have wider ICT horizons that reach beyond community networks, working more broadly in the area of science and ICTs for development. While Lanet Umoja did have a strong initial impetus from a local champion, only Dunia Moja was established directly and exclusively to build a community network.

Five community networks in Kenya that participated in the National School for Community Networks are described briefly here,[7] including their stage of development at the time of writing. Most of them are based in rural areas.

- > The Africa Higher Education Research Institute (AHERI) has connected centres called digital villages, including one within a polytechnic institute in Kabondo (Nianza County) and two in Siaya County – one at an innovation centre and another at a community centre. The community network is at the AHERI hub in Kisumu, and each entity has a community hotspot. In addition, AHERI connects 45 secondary schools in Kisumu, Siaya and Homa Bay counties, and four public hotspots around Kisumu. AHERI began as a project under the NGO Community Initiative Support Services and has since itself been registered as an NGO. Its founders have also established a private social enterprise called aherinet to provide technical support to community networks.

- > Dunia Moja, based in a rural zone of the eastern county of Kilifi, was founded in 2020 by a local engineer, and currently connects ten schools. It has a small training hub and offers three public hotspots in the village near the hub.

- > Lanet Umoja network is on the outskirts of the city of Nakuru (in Nakuru County). It connects seven schools, the local chief’s office and one public hotspot. It began as a local initiative of the chief, and has recently been registered as a CBO. It is one of four projects initiated by AFCHIX. (AFCHIX works with women-run community networks in Kenya, Morocco, Namibia and Senegal).

- > Ng’arua Maarifa (ALINet) Community Network is located in the town of Sipili in Laikipia County, a rural area. Operated from the Ng’arua Centre, it connects four schools and offers free hotspots to farmers and others within the local community. The centre is one of seven resource centres run by ALIN, the only entity offering communication services in this remote area.

- > TunapandaNET connects 33 centres to the internet, including schools, youth centres and NGOs, in the Kibera informal settlement in the urban centre of Nairobi. It also supports a number of hotspots. (At the time of writing, the TunapandaNET team had decided to become independent from Tunapanda Institute and to register as a CBO in order to be eligible for a community-network license. It is now called TandaNet.)

Target user groups, sustainability and aims

Initial target groups also vary among the community networks. Schools are the most common primary target; though, as the AFCHIX representative explained, the intention may be to begin there and later expand to other target groups. Schools can offer key infrastructure, such as premises and electricity, and thus can act as a bridge to the wider community or to specific groups (such as women, in the case of AFCHIX). At the time of their launch, none of the entities was dedicated exclusively to providing access to the public at large or to CBOs; they were all engaging in other activities.

The community networks’ approaches to sustainability and their business models also vary depending on their circumstances and possibilities. With the exception of Dunia Moja, all began by delivering communication services free of charge; however, all have concrete plans to generate some income and ultimately to pay for various costs within the community network. To date, none of the networks appears to be close to generating sufficient income to cover ongoing costs, such as backhaul and staff salaries. The sustainability approaches and business models of the five community networks that participated in the National School for Community Networks are described here:

- > AHERI is looking at offering ISP services in order to anchor clients and generate income, but the team is also building local partnerships in their various community activities to subsidize the network.

- > Dunia Moja, from the very start of its activities with schools, determined that the schools would pay for the service, but that it would be offered at an affordable rate. All schools found ways to collect the funds from parents, covering about half the internet access backhaul costs. The Dunia Moja team is also exploring whether the schools can offer access to households and businesses close by, which would cover the shortfall. A minimal charge will also be introduced for the local hotspots, though the billing and payment system had not yet been finalized at the time of writing.

- > Lanet Umoja began by charging a small amount for its public hotspot. However, the revenue generated was minimal and the billing system was problematic and often dysfunctional. Since 2023 they have been moving towards an anchor-client ISP model, connecting homes and business in the area, and they planned to have their first customers by that same year. They also plan to start charging the schools, but at a much lower rate compared to anchor tenants.

- > Ng’arua Maarifa also plans to secure a number of anchor clients among local government, businesses, NGOs and others based in Sipili, which currently lacks a commercial ISP. It is hoped that these anchor clients will generate sufficient income to subsidize some public hotspots that would remain free of charge for use by the community.

- > TandaNet works in Kibera, a very poor community deprived of many government services. It is moving towards securing a number of paying anchor clients, but even the community schools (which receive no government funding) are asked to pay for the maintenance of their own equipment. One of the income-generating ideas is for tokens to be sold at affordable rates for hotspot use. Advertising revenue may also be sought from local businesses.

The fact that the new community-network license requires the submission of a business plan may have added some urgency to the sustainability efforts of the communities. The license also offers new avenues to secure revenue as a legally registered ISP, and – as is clear from the above – many of the entities are looking into these options.

The license requirements have also influenced one or two entities to revise their governance structure; specifically by creating and registering an NGO or CBO entity dedicated to community-network activities.

The aims of almost all community networks (and this differentiates them from commercial ISPs) extend beyond the provision of affordable internet, to include the use of digital tools. The networks see internet access and the provision and creation of local digital content as enablers of broader community development. Some have targeted specific and immediate uses, such as providing the means whereby schools can fulfill their reporting requirements before the Ministry of Education. Others (such as ALIN) have a body of relevant local information and resources they make available to their target groups (for instance – to farmers). (ALIN provides extensive educational materials and training under their Remote Area Community Hotspot for Education and Learning platform.) Others, such as AHERI and TandaNet,[8] have training programmes that can be supported or delivered to their target groups online. Most community networks already have (or have plans to establish) an intranet, which is always offered for free.

Dunia Moja is developing an intranet in order to share high-quality teaching courses and materials (among other things) directly with the schools it supports. AHERI’s system also supports intranet and provides some content, though these are local intranets for each school or user. (The technology they use does not currently support a central server that would enable wider networking between all user nodes.)[9] All the entities indicate that they would like to facilitate the development of local content or applications and to embed internet and intranet use within the community’s economic and social activities. At the same time, simply providing affordable access to the internet and enabling community groups or individuals to use it is seen as a significant goal and achievement for communities.

It is also worth noting that, for many, the COVID-19 pandemic – despite the huge disruption and tragic consequences it caused – offered opportunities to community networks. At a time when governments were urging people to switch to remote learning and working, community networks were making efforts to extend their reach into the communities. Entities offered information and support to those who were most marginalized and excluded due to lack of access or affordability. Some provided training to teachers and others in internet use. For example, Dunia Moja went so far as to offer a safe space at its hub for children to continue their education in small groups using school-issued tablets. Several community networks reported visibly expanded uptake in some communication services, such as in the public hotspots. Another example of increased adoption was the growth in the number of young people taking online classes in ALIN’s Ng’arua Maarifa schools, which are connected to their community network. (ALIN implemented a community needs and advocacy project to adapt their centres to the local needs during the pandemic.) AHERI also saw a rise in demand across all their services, including from people working from home and in online businesses for their ISP offering.

Overall, the basic technical skills needed to build and run a Wi-Fi-based network are, as far as could be determined, now largely present and improving among those involved in the development of community networks. However, as the networks develop, there is an evident need for more complex skills around billing and network management. The challenges around backhaul, whether in the form of poor quality or high cost, remains a serious issue for community networks. For example, some community networks cannot buy bandwidth at sufficient volume to drive the price down and backhaul in the volume they require is not competitively offered at wholesale levels. Other solutions may also become possible, for instance, if the cost of satellite provision falls sufficiently, or if entities can negotiate a better broadband offer from the Kenya Education Network Trust.

4. Dynamics of change and conclusions

The role of advocacy

The breakthrough represented by the 2021 Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks came following significant preparation and advocacy over a period of time. Contributions from civil society, through mobilization and advocacy efforts and by providing the telecommunications regulator with technical assistance and inputs, were critical. The collaboration between key actors within the Communications Authority and certain civil society actors led to a unique partnership in the co-creation and completion of several processes and documents within the 2021–2022 period.

The initial advocacy work began with informal discussions between KICTANet,[10] the APC, Internet Society, Article 19, World Wide Web Foundation/Alliance for Affordable Internet and Tunapanda Institute. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had begun and restrictions were being put in place, forcing schools to close and people to work from home. Discussions focused on what could be done to enhance internet access, particularly among unconnected groups who were clearly at a disadvantage, in a way that complemented, rather than competing with, the existing providers of internet access. The idea of a speedy intervention to boost the potential of community networks emerged and the regulator’s management board approved an exploration of complementary model strategies that might help bring about the needed change. This idea soon developed into the Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks.

APC collaborated with KICTANet and the University of Strathclyde – experts in shared and licensed spectrum – to provide technical support to the Communications Authority in further drafting the framework. Initially, the framework covered mainly the potential of TVWS to support community networks. Further civil-society intervention contributed to expanding the framework to include other parts of the spectrum. A Communications Authority official closely involved in this process believes that the COVID-19 pandemic helped to create an enabling environment in which the case could be made for a non-profit intervention to reach low-income and rural families and communities, many of whom were beyond the reach of commercial operators. It also enabled the regulatory process to proceed far more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.

It should be noted that there was considerable opposition to the framework. Major telecommunications operators were opposed from the start, often arguing that since they pay substantive sums for licenses and for spectrum access, others should not receive the same licenses and access for free. Interviews suggest that even within the regulator, opinions were divided. Some policymakers also argued for a slower approach and more consultation. Behind much of the opposition may have been the idea that the public interest is best served by the traditional approach of maximizing general exchequer revenue from the sector. Effective lobbying was undoubtedly a central factor in countering these arguments and the powerful interests behind them – opening the debate about what the public interest might constitute in the spheres of spectrum use and licensing, and enabling the rapid finalization of the framework process and progress with community networks ever since the framework launch.

It should also be noted that some nascent community networks, which were already operating without a license, needed some convincing that the effort involved in applying for a license and becoming a licensed operator, would be worth it. The Communications Authority had, in effect, been willing to look the other way as they operated without a license, and the benefits of a license were not very clear. Both Tunapanda Institute and KICTANet played an important role in helping informal community networks to see the benefits of the CNSP license.

The advocacy work for the framework also served to lay the groundwork to influence the USF review. Here again, the support of civil society, through inputs to the technical assistance consultants, was critical in supporting the development of a background paper and in the inclusion of language around community networks. There is ongoing discussion around the operationalization of the USF. Potentially, distributing these funds to grassroots communities could yield very significant support that could be (one could go so far as to say that it is likely to be) decisive to the future of community networks.

5. Conclusions

Advocacy and lobbying in Kenya for community networks has been highly effective in building an enabling environment. Thanks to sustained advocacy and a collaborative partnership between civil society and the regulator, the Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework and the CNSP license represent a critical milestone in legally recognizing community-based actors in the telecommunications sector and their potential contribution. The new enabling regulatory environment for community networks should encourage the expansion of existing community networks and ease the way for new community networks to emerge. Furthermore, the potential for the USF to support different phases of community network development, from infrastructure development and capacity building to consolidation and sustainability, could have enormous results.

Yet the framework and the USF offer only a start. Without progress in other key areas, they are unlikely to build the impetus needed to fully exploit and empirically assess the value of community networks. Work-plan proposals within the USF may be crucial to this as well, but it seems likely that whatever proposals are contained in the USF five-year plan will require a substantive amount of advocacy, research and lobbying to translate them into useful actions and resources for community networks.

Continued civil society support, from TandaNet, the Association for Community Networks in Kenya, KICTANet and others, will be critical in moving these possibilities forward, and indeed in opening new ones. Communities and grassroots organizations will need to be accompanied in addressing sustainability issues and deepening their current income streams, through anchor tenants for instance, but also in exploring new potential sources of income. This may include building community-run mobile broadband networks. Furthermore, communities will need accompaniment and support in creating mechanisms for replication of community network models and wider dissemination of information on community networks. Doing this in a coherent and concerted manner will require deeper cooperation and coordination between many of the stakeholders already promoting community networks. In order to leverage the potential of community networks, sustained and consistent action will be needed, both at the regulatory and policy level and at the level of the community networks themselves.

A senior Communications Authority official offered the opinion that successfully steering the operationalization of the framework towards positive conclusions for community networks, and indeed building working relationships with the Communications Authority in other areas, would require, above all, an effective multistakeholder-management approach. This applies not just to policymakers, regulators and telecommunications operators but also on the ground, to grassroots communities that might potentially benefit. Stakeholder management at that scale requires concerted planning and collaborative execution that includes all levels. This is necessary for the next stage of community-network development in Kenya.

References

Communications Authority of Kenya. 2021a. Licensing and Shared Spectrum Framework for Community Networks. Nairobi. https://repository.ca.go.ke/server/api/core/bitstreams/4eb78f8d-8b48-40b8-b82a-1c688f1194c5/content

Communications Authority of Kenya. 2021b. Application Form For Community Network and Service Provider License 1-TL-8. Nairobi. https://www.ca.go.ke/sites/default/files/articles/Telecoms%20Forms/Application%20Form%20For%20Community%20Network%20and%20Service%20Provider%20Licence1-TL-8-0.pdf

Communications Authority of Kenya. 2022a. Final Draft Universal Service Fund (USF) Operating Manual. Nairobi. https://www.ca.go.ke/sites/default/files/CA/Universal%20Access/Draft-USF-Operating-Manual-2022.pdf

Communications Authority of Kenya. 2022b. USF Strategic Plan 2022 – 2026. Nairobi. https://www.ca.go.ke/sites/default/files/CA/Universal%20Access/Draft-USF-Strategic-Plan-2022-2026-.pdf

Developing Telecoms. 2021. Kenya approves TVWS framework. In: Developing Telecoms. London. https://developingtelecoms.com/telecom-business/telecom-regulation/11175-kenya-approves-tvws-framework.html

GSMA. 2020. Reform Policy to Boost Kenya’s Mobile Connectivity Says GSMA. In: GSMA. London. [Cited 13 March 2022]. https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/press-release/reform-policy-to-boost-kenyas-mobile-connectivity-says-gsma

ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2021. Percent Individuals Using Internet. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/statistics/2021/December/PercentIndividualsUsingInternet.xlsx

ITU. 2021. Mobile Broadband Subscriptions. In: ITU. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/statistics/2021/December/MobileBroadbandSubscriptions_2007-2020.xlsx

Internet Society. 2016. First Summit on Community Networks in Africa. In: Internet Society. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 13 March 2022]. https://www.internetsociety.org/events/summit-community-networks-africa/2016/

Internet Society. 2017. Second Summit on Community Networks in Africa. In: Internet Society. Geneva, Switzerland. [Cited 13 March 2022]. https://www.internetsociety.org/events/summit-community-networks-africa/2017/

Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology. 2019. National Broadband Strategy 2018-2023. Nairobi. https://www.ict.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/National-Broadband-Strategy-2023-FINAL.pdf

Tunapanda Institute. n.d. Tunapanda Institute. [Cited 13 March 2022]. https://tunapanda.org

[1] The risk here, and this was confirmed in interviews with regulators and others, is that spectrum auctions are valued only for the public revenue they generate, as distinct from whether they maximize public interest.

[2] The initial fee was a fixed KES 200 000 (approximately EUR 1 500) and KES 100 000 (approximately EUR 790) for network facilities providers and application service providers, respectively; and annual fees of at least KES 160 000 (approximately EUR 1 260) and KES 80 000 (approximately EUR 630).

[3] The draft license and the compliance form were also issued at this time.

[4] Such a database is an essential prerequisite to reallocating spectrum that is not being used at a given moment to another user, in real time.

[5] Tunapanda means “we are growing” in Swahili. For more information on Tunapanda Institute, visit https://tunapanda.org

[6] These organizations are: AHERI in Kisumu, Lanet Umoja in Nakuru, Dunia Moja in Kilifi, Ng’arua Maarifa in Laikipia, Athi in Meru, Oasis Mathare in Nairobi and Action le Progres in Kakuma.

[7] The other four communities that participated in the National School of Community Networks – Athi in Meru, Oasis Mathare in Nairobi, Global Innovation Valley in Turkana and Action le Progres in Kakuma – were still in the early stages of their development and, as such, it is not possible to describe the characteristics of their community networks. TunapandaNET (organizer of the National School of Community Networks) is also included here in the summary of characteristics. Two additional community networks (AngazaNet in Nairobi and Kijiji Yeetu in Siaya) were identified after the National School activities began, so they did not participate in the training.

[8] Both AHERI and Tunapanda Institute are members of the Kenya Education Network Trust (https://www.kenet.or.ke/), which provides high-speed internet connection to members in the education sector at competitive rates, along with a set of free educational resources. It was not possible to determine their level of usage and relevance in the specific contexts.

[9] AHERI’s technology partner is Basic Internet Foundation (https://basicinternet.org/), which provides free InfoSpot kits and Raspberry Pi basic server. However, additional equipment is needed to link separate users to a central server.

[10] Kenya ICT Action Network, a multistakeholder think tank and ICT policy advocate, with participation from a number of key community network promoters. The LocNet regional coordinator is employed by KICTANet.

Chapter 11

Universal service fund as an RCS enabler: the Argentine process

Authors:

Bruce Girard

International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR)
Fundación Comunica

Seán Ó Siochrú

Nexus Research Cooperative

Kathleen Diga

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Adriana Labardini Inzunza

Rhizomatica

Jésica Selene Giudice

AlterMundi

1. Introduction

This chapter illustrates the historical changes to Argentina’s telecommunications policy regime, beginning with the launch of the national telecommunications plan in 2010 through recent developments in 2023. The chapter also describes the influential contributions of communities organized to defend technological autonomy, family agriculture and popular economy, as well as the clout of cooperatives and digital activists working towards alternative communication options, especially in rural and remote areas of the country and in informal settlements around Buenos Aires. The efforts of these communities and entities led to the Argentine government developing the first regulation around the use of the country’s universal service fund (USF) – in Spanish, the Fondo Fiduciario del Servicio Universal – for community networks. The chapter then provides an in-depth review of the Barrios Populares and Roberto Arias programmes, both USF programmes aimed to develop connectivity solutions for underserved communities. Insight into the early implementation of these programmes is provided as well as some of the early results of the programmes to date.

2. Developments, 1990 through 2018

Telecommunications policy

National telecommunications plan: Argentina Conectada (Connected Argentina)

Like most countries in Latin America, in the mid to late 1990s, Argentina sought to expand access to internet services across the country. At first, this expansion was led primarily by private commercial operators and, thus, was shaped by market forces that prioritized areas with high population density and relative wealth. By 2010, the Province of Buenos Aires, home to 36 percent of the Argentine population, accounted for 63 percent of national household internet connections, with the remaining 37 percent concentrated in other major urban areas. The fixed broadband market in Argentina was highly concentrated, with three main global players (Telefonica, Telecom and Claro) and with prices for bundled services (generally: mobile, fixed broadband and paid TV) were far from affordable. In fact, telecommunication costs represented 10 to 15 percent of family income among families in the fourth and fifth quintiles (Baladron et al. 2021), contributing to stagnation in the growth of the networks. Residents of rural areas and of poor neighbourhoods in urban areas were largely excluded from the provision of services.

The national telecommunications plan, Argentina Conectada (Connected Argentina), was launched in October 2010 as a strategic policy to promote digital inclusion and address the connectivity challenges of the excluded population. The primary objective of the plan is to design, build and operate a state-owned national fibre optic network capable of connecting all Argentinians. The new policy assigned the task of building and operating the network to Empresa Argentina de Soluciones Satelitales Sociedad Anónima (Argentine Satellite Solutions Company Ltd., or ARSAT), a state-owned telecommunications company established in 2006. Delegating the task to the state-owned company and financing the initiative with public funds was seen as the only way to ensure the rollout of the estimated 58 000 km of fibre required to bring internet connectivity to the entire country. It should be noted that ARSAT only operates as a wholesale carrier and does not provide services to end users. Nevertheless, this rollout would fulfil the obligation, inherent in the policy, of providing infrastructure to unconnected, remote and marginalized communities.

In 2015, the new government, led by then president Mauricio Macri, made important changes to the plan (including renaming the plan Federal Internet Plan), in part to make more room for private initiatives. As a result, public funding for ARSAT was reduced and, at one point, the government even considered privatizing ARSAT and the 30 000 km of fibre optic cable that it had already laid. Although the new government announced important objectives for the national network, including connecting 1 200 additional communities within two years, actual progress slowed. Only 450 communities, less than 40 percent of the goal, were connected within that period.

Despite the setbacks, the development of ARSAT’s national network (which, as of 2023, had 32 804 km of fibre optic cable) (Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros, 2023) provided fundamental backhaul infrastructure with much more affordable prices for wholesale internet than those offered in large cities by the three commercial operators. This helped set the stage for the next step – reaching the “last mile”, especially in rural and remote areas of the country. According to data provided by the telecommunications regulator, Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones (National Communications Entity, or ENACOM), in 2018, 52 percent of the residents of the Province of Buenos Aires had broadband access, while in the Province of Jujuy, in the far north of the country, only 6 percent had broadband access. Four years later, in 2022, rural broadband access had improved, but was still far from universal. Access in the provinces of Formosa (39.41 percent), Jujuy (58.4 percent), Santiago del Estero (48.05 percent), Chaco (43.62 percent) and Santa Cruz (43.53 percent) was still significantly limited, leaving more than 40 to 50 percent of their population disconnected (ENACOM, 2023).

According to the National Institute of Agricultural Technology, over 40 percent of the rural villages in Argentina have no internet access nor any other means of communication. If villages with poor, not-meaningful connectivity are included, this goes up to 80 percent. This is of concern for National Institute of Agricultural Technology, as 81.6 percent of agricultural production in Argentina comes from family, peasant and indigenous growers who live and produce in such villages (ENACOM, 2022).

Digital Argentina Act and ENACOM

The Digital Argentina Act (entitled Ley Argentina Digital, 27.078), adopted in December 2014, replaced the Argentinian Telecommunications Act of 1972. Its particular significance to community networks is that Article 82 was the second explicit mention in Latin America (the first was in Mexico) of community networks in a law. The article specifically required that the state promote and support community networks. The article also provided direction around the licensing of community networks. In 2016, ENACOM was created, as both the telecommunications regulator and the body responsible for the management and disbursement of Argentina’s USF.

In 2018, the regulations that govern licences for ICT services were amended to introduce the community network licence category, as called for in the Digital Argentina Act.[1] Known as VARC licences (VARC being the Spanish acronym for value added service – internet access for community networks), these licences are specifically for non-profit community networks. They are issued free-of-charge and are exempt from the complex reporting requirements which commercial licence holders are bound to. The licensees also do not need to contribute to the USF. However, the licences also come with a set of restrictions, the most important being that VARC licences are restricted to providing internet service only, and in communities with populations under 5 000 people (ENACOM, 2018).

The amendment that created the VARC licences also created the possibility of applying for funds from the USF. The USF, which was established in its current form by the Digital Argentina Act, is financed through a 1 percent levy on total revenue from the provision of telecommunication services. The mandate of the USF is to finance projects oriented towards achieving universal access.[2] Examples include continuing the expansion of ARSAT’s national fibre optic network, projects designed to extend telecommunications services in rural areas (for example, providing 80 percent contribution to projects undertaken by telecommunications cooperatives or private operators), and providing access to public institutions, such as rural schools.

Complementary models of telecommunications networks

Argentina has a long history of locally owned and operated services. These providers have stepped in when state or private actors could not or would not provide affordable telecommunications services. Hundreds of cooperative ventures supplying communities with water, electricity and telecommunications services exist throughout the country. They are organized in different ways and by different types of organizations (including worker and consumer cooperatives, community associations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations], to name a few). What they have in common is that they are locally owned, are not-for-profit and are established to provide services to communities.

The first telecommunications cooperatives emerged in the early 1960s through the efforts of local residents in areas that were poorly served by the state-owned operator, Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (National Telecommunications Company, or ENTel). While not supported by the government, these telecommunications cooperatives were tolerated by ENTel, since they operated in areas that the company considered unprofitable and they only provided modest revenue through tariff-sharing agreements. By 1965, there were more than 100 telecommunications cooperatives, and by 1990, when ENTel was privatized (it was divided into two companies and purchased by France Telecom for services provided in the north of the country and by Telefónica de España for the south), there were more than 300 such cooperatives. It is important to note that the cooperatives were given licences under the same conditions as the private companies (France Telecom and Telefonica de Espana). However, ENTel’s privatization process lasted seven years, until the end of 1997, and the cooperatives had the advantage of having those seven years to prepare to compete against the larger private companies. The cooperatives managed the competition well and, despite their much smaller size (most serve communities with fewer than 10 000 inhabitants and have fewer than 1 000 subscribers), most of them continue to operate until today. According to the Federation of Telecommunications Cooperatives (in Spanish, Federación de Cooperativas de Telecomunicaciones) and the Federation of Telephone Service Cooperatives of the Southern Zone (in Spanish, Federación de Cooperativas del Servicio Telefónico de la Zona Sur), the two associations that represent the sector, in 2020 telecommunications cooperatives provided services to 2 million people nationwide and directly employed 9 000 people (Nuestra Revista, 2020). Various studies have found these telecommunications cooperatives to be innovative. For example, the first digital exchange in Argentina was established by Telpin, a cooperative in the coastal city of Pinamar in the 1980s, while other cooperatives pioneered wireless last-mile and backhaul solutions. More recently, CATEL, an Argentinian chamber of telecommunications cooperatives, launched IMOWI, the first cooperative-owned mobile virtual operator.

While Argentina’s community connectivity movement does not generally consider the telecommunications cooperatives to be community networks, they do provide an indisputable success story of social enterprise – locally owned and managed, not for profit, focused on community needs, and with a long history that demonstrates sustainability, growth and resilience. Synergies between the cooperative movement and community networks are starting to emerge. For example, an electricity and public-services cooperative in southern Argentina, the Cooperativa de Provision de Electricidad y Otros Servicios Públicos Aldea Beleiro Limitada, set out to establish a community network in a community with fewer than 500 inhabitants in the province of Chubut. In March 2020 it became the first electricity cooperative to receive a VARC licence (Cátedra Libre UNLP, 2021).

First community networks

The first community networks, or alternative networks as they were originally called in Argentina, appeared in urban centres in the early 2000s. Buenos Aires Libre, Delta Libre and LugroMesh, in Rosario, were started by young computer hackers interested in exploring the possibility of affordable connectivity as an alternative to the mainstream internet solutions of the commercial operators. Over time, the innovations and aspirations that were behind these networks found their way to rural areas where they were not so much alternative ways of providing access, but rather the only way of achieving connectivity. Commercial operators had no interest in bearing the expense of extending their networks an additional 50 to 100 km in order to provide access to a community with a population of 50, 500 or even 5 000 people.

Around 2011, AlterMundi, an organization that supports the establishment of community networks, was established (obtaining its formal status as an NGO in 2015). AlterMundi is based in José de la Quintana, a town of less than 3 000 people, situated just 50 km from Argentina’s second largest city – Córdoba. The organization was founded by Nicolás Echániz and Jésica Giudice, recent arrivals from Buenos Aires who had been involved in the Free/Libre and Open Source Software movement there. In 2012, Nicolás and Jésica also founded the community network QuintanaLibre with the active involvement of the community. After that, under the guidance of AlterMundi, community networks were quickly established in six nearby towns and, soon after, in communities in the neighbouring valleys of Paravachasca and Traslasierra. Since 2012, different communities near José de la Quintana (in the Paravachasca Valley) have replicated the project, each with its own management group, administration and independent decision-making bodies and processes (although often coordinating between two or more networks, depending on the significance of the decision, especially when dealing with the interconnected networks). Soon, communities in the region of Altas Cumbres and Traslasierra, 50 km from the Paravachasca networks, replicated the process, creating their own community networks.

These Wi-Fi-based community networks were built, operated and maintained by community members themselves and cooperated with a variety of local actors, both providing and receiving support. For example, they provided access to local schools, community centres and public offices, and negotiated broadband service – first with the carrier Sillica Networks for two years and, soon after, with the University of Córdoba to get access to its broadband connection at nights and on weekends when the university used it only minimally. At the time, the community networks were 50 km from the university (the distance has since been reduced to 45 km), and a mountain range with peaks of up to 2 500 meters above sea level (MASL) stood between them. Thus, making use of the university’s bandwidth required building a microwave connection to bring the signal over the mountains. The Paravachasca connection point that links to the university signal is installed at approximately 850 MASL (its first location was at 950 MASL). The jump to Traslasierra is made through a link with Altas Cumbres (which is approximately 35 km from Traslasierra), with a node at 2 300 MASL. In 2024, the Traslasierra network of networks achieved interconnection with the provincial state carrier Agencia Conectividad Córdoba, through a traditional commercial agreement.

Similar to rural Wi-Fi networks elsewhere, the initial capital investment was kept low and funded with donations and volunteer labour. The locations for node and antenna installation were provided by the community, and the tower was provided by the university. Most of the labour for maintenance is also provided by the community and small monthly contributions cover the operational costs of bandwidth, equipment replacement and general maintenance.

AlterMundi chose to use mesh network technology for the rural networks they designed, pointing to three of its characteristics (resilience, relative simplicity and low-cost) as optimal for providing Wi-Fi internet to remote rural areas. At first they used off-the-shelf routers, modifying the firmware to make them suitable for running mesh networks. However, this solution proved inadequate in the long run. On the one hand, the routers were not optimally designed to run outdoor mesh networks and, on the other hand, manufacturers eliminated the possibility of replacing the firmware in order to comply with new regulations of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States of America. There was also an increase in technical problems as the networks grew and scaled up. In response, AlterMundi designed LibreRouter, an open-source hardware solution specifically designed for mesh networks in rural communities.

In 2018, AlterMundi was granted the first community network licence in the country, allowing it to provide non-commercial internet access in communities with populations under 5 000.

Atalaya Sur was another key actor in the early days of community networks. It established its first non-commercial community network in 2014 in Villa 20, one of the largest informal settlements in Buenos Aires, with a population of 30 000. Atalaya Sur’s Wi-Fi network project was combined with fibre optic connectivity contracted from Telefónica, the largest telecommunications services supplier. By 2018, it consisted of a Wi-Fi network with 27 access points covering most of the settlement’s population, and by 2020, it was providing low-cost broadband to hundreds of households. However, Atalaya Sur operates under a value-added services licence, not a VARC, as VARC did not exist in 2014. Therefore, it is subject to more regulatory burdens than a community network.

3. Developments from 2019 to 2023

Universal service fund – the Barrios Populares and Roberto Arias programmes

Although the regulatory agency ENACOM was created and tasked with administering Argentina’s USF in 2016, its specific mandate to promote and support community networks was not immediately addressed. In 2020 a confluence of factors put community networks on the agenda. These included:

- > the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the country’s extreme inequalities in terms of access and lent a sense of urgency to inclusive connectivity;

- > the coming together of a more enabling environment for community networks as a result of the USF 2016 regulations as well as the policy and legislative measures discussed in the previous section, and the USF, which had been introduced over the last five years;

- > mobilized collective participation, which saw sustained advocacy work undertaken by organized communities and civil society promoting community networks, along with allies and groups from other sectors: allies from academia, Indigenous People, farming families and other activists of the popular economy;

- > the development of the Community Networks Seedbed during the pandemic, largely funded by several small-grant programmes, which demonstrated that the birth of new community networks with digital training, in various types of localities and provinces of the country, and overcoming all the obstacles of the pandemic, is a real and feasible solution for many disconnected and underconnected communities. (This point was significant in the face of initial scepticism from ENACOM as to whether community networks were viable on a national scale.)

In 2019, a new government came to power and quickly set about reorganizing ENACOM. In early 2020, the Special Projects Division was created to lead the policy work on community networks. The division would specifically address the inequality of internet access in 5 687 poor, urban neighbourhoods (home to over 4.5 million dwellers) (Natalia and Mariano, eds, 2023) and remote rural communities, by providing financing through Argentina’s USF.

National Connectivity Programme for Poor, Urban Neighborhoods

The Special Projects Division’s first programme, announced in June 2020, was the National Connectivity Programme for Poor Urban Neighbourhoods (Programa Nacional de Conectividad para Barrios Populares). The initial programme budget was ARS 1 billion, to which an additional ARS 2 billion was added in December 2021, for a total budget of approximately ARS 3 billion, or USD 30 million,[3] which was to be used to support projects providing new internet infrastructure, or improving and expanding existing infrastructure in poor urban neighbourhoods.

The characteristics of the programme included the following:

- > Eligible neighbourhoods included the more than 5 600 neighbourhoods listed in the National Registry of Urban Poor Neighborhoods (Ministerio de Economía, 2018), many of which are located within informal settlements. Together these neighbourhoods are home to approximately 10 percent of Argentina’s population, and two-thirds of their residents do not have access to the internet.

- > Applicants can be civil-society associations, NGOs, telecommunications cooperatives, workers’ cooperatives, individuals, small internet service provider businesses, etc. In theory, even the three main internet service providers could apply, although they have not demonstrated any interest in doing so.[4]

- > Projects have up to 18 months from the date of their approval to complete their deliverables. (However, delayed disbursements made it impossible to cover the ever-increasing prices of imported equipment and other operating costs.)

- > Applicants can have either a normal information and communication technology (ICT) service licence or a VARC community network licence. VARC licensees were able to benefit from a simpler application procedure and ENACOM offered them extra support in the form of training and advice around the application process. VARC applicants were also allowed to include the first six months of network maintenance and connectivity costs in their budgets. However, they were still not allowed to provide service to communities with over 5 000 inhabitants, which excluded the most densely populated urban neighbourhoods from the option of applying for support with a VARC licence.

- > Non-reimbursable funding was available for 100 percent of costs. This is only the case for poor urban neighbourhoods and rural community networks. Other programmes financed by the USF are eligible for a maximum of 80 percent of costs. Payment is made in three instalments, and the money is disbursed in advance of spending. (That is, projects do not have to obtain credit for expenses and then seek reimbursement, as might be the case with other programmes.)

- > A project in a single neighbourhood can request up to ARS 40 million (USD 400 000). Projects covering multiple neighbourhoods can request up to ARS 160 million (USD 1.6 million). The average amount approved per project has been approximately ARS 70 million (USD 700 000);

- > All projects are required to provide free access for registered community organizations in the neighbourhood for at least 18 months after completion.

The first project of the Barrios Populares programme was approved in December 2020. The applicant was El Hormiguero, a community association in Villa Soldati, a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires. Soldati Conectada community network consisted of 5 neighbourhoods.

As of March 2022, the programme had received 120 applications, approved 29 projects[5] and allocated two-thirds of its ARS 3 billion (USD 30 million) budget. The approved projects sought to build or improve networks in 425 neighbourhoods, almost 10 percent of the national total of eligible neighbourhoods.

The narrow definition of a community network applying only to communities with fewer than 5 000 people, is somehow surprising and has no apparent justification as a stand-alone feature, regardless of the degree of isolation, poverty or lack of access to alternative connectivity, and yet it is binding. Several not-for-profit projects submitted by NGOs or cooperatives fall into this category of projects that would connect neighbourhoods with more than 5 000 people. For example, Atalaya Sur’s ARS 14 million (USD 140 000)project to expand and improve its community network serving the 30 000 inhabitants of Villa 20 is one of the projects which falls outside the community network licence category. Although this restriction indeed limits the possible localities eligible for a VARC licence, it is still a major advancement towards digital inclusion, allowing smaller communities to have a light licensing mechanism and access to USF resources (through 2023, at least).

It is too early to evaluate the impact of the Barrios Populares programme as the first project was just approved in December 2020 and, at the time of writing, none of the approved projects had yet reached completion. From ENACOM’s perspective, however, the take-up was positive. By March 2022, two-thirds of the ARS 3 billion (USD 30 million) total budget had been allocated. ENACOM also noted that, once completed, the approved projects will provide connectivity to 10 percent of the eligible neighbourhoods nationwide. Sustainability, however, remains a question that will only be answered over time. Natalia Vinelli, ENACOM’s director of the Special Projects Division at the time of publication, admitted her concerns, especially for the VARC applicants:

What worries me is what happens next. If I look at a project’s file, they’ve got the community’s support, they’ve designed and built a network, everything looks good. But the project includes the first six months of connectivity to the internet backbone. What happens if they can’t pay for the seventh? In my file, the project was successful. But if they can’t pay for connectivity, if the equipment breaks and can’t be replaced or repaired, then all the money and effort means nothing (N. Vinelli, personal communication, 2022).

On the other hand, those accompanying the projects believe Barrios Populares programme to be generous enough to allow for the deployment of a network that can sustain itself and, with some effort, can even grow. If a project were to need additional help, it could reach out and receive it from other respective support network actors such as the state, its neighbours, or other community networks, as they are well connected to available resources.

Roberto Arias programme

The Roberto Arias programme for developing internet infrastructure through community networks was formally announced a year after the Barrios Populares programme, in June 2021. The call for projects was launched in September 2021, and ENACOM allocated an initial budget of ARS 300 million (USD 3 million) to support projects in providing internet infrastructure to rural areas and indigenous communities.[6]

Many of the characteristics of the programme are similar to those of the Barrios Populares programme. One important difference is the amount of funds available, both in total (the first allotment for the Roberto Arias programme is 30 percent of the amount initially allotted to Barrios Populares) and per project (the maximum available for projects covering several communities is ARS 10 million [USD 100 000], and single-community projects are eligible to receive between ARS 3 and 4 million (USD 30 000 and USD 40 000).[7]

Eligible communities are those which appear in any of the national official registries of Indigenous Communities, rural communities and family-farming settlements. Like the Barrios Populares programme, eligible applicants can be individuals or a variety of legal entities (including community associations, NGOs, telecommunications cooperatives and workers’ cooperatives). One benefit for civil-society associations and foundations is that they are exempt from VAT. In order to apply to the programme, they must have or be in the process of applying for a VARC community-network licence. Holders of a normal value-added services licence are not eligible. In 2022 the amount for individual projects was raised to ARS 30 million (USD 300 000) for larger communities, and in 2023 it was raised again to ARS 50 million (USD 500 000)per project. Yet, the budget for the Roberto Arias programme represented only 0.63 percent of the total accrued amount of the USF in relation to other public entities accessing the USF for subsidized connectivity projects. At the end of 2023, ENACOM decided to quintuple the total budget for the Roberto Arias programme, increasing it to ARS 1.5 billion (USD 15 million) for 2024 projects.

As of March 2022, only two proposals had been received, both covering several communities. One is supported by AlterMundi and the other by Atalaya Sur. Both organizations have significant prior experience in building, supporting and operating community networks. AlterMundi’s proposal is a collaborative project including several networks in the Province of Córdoba with several AlterMundi members living in the locations of the community networks, not only QuintanaLibre, but also in Traslasierra and Cosquín (all in Córdoba). The proposal seeks to expand and improve the existing QuintanaLibre network. Also included in the AlterMundi proposal is a network of the nearby village of Los Molinos (6 km from the town of Quintana), and a new network in Cosquín, a town approximately 70 km from Los Molinos. These networks are managed by a partner organization participating in AlterMundi´s proposal. The proposal requested the maximum amount of ARS 10 million (USD 100 000). According to feedback received from ENACOM at the time of writing, the project had been approved and completed through the second stage. However, like the other active projects, it cannot continue as the government has been unable to adjust the budgets to the inflationary price increases that occurred with the change of government.

Sixteen more project applications were submitted within the next year to the Roberto Arias programme, thanks to guidance provided by El Semillero (AlterMundi, n.d.), an AlterMundi knowledge-sharing initiative created to accompany rural communities with no experience in community networks in the process of filing well-developed project applications. (Neither the government nor the communities was accustomed to working directly with the other party. As such, interactions and procedures between the two were not easy, and assistance, such as that provided by El Semillero, made a difference.)

AlterMundi supported the applications and projects of eight organizations. (Six of these were approved; however, at time of writing, four of the organizations had not signed the USF project agreement because the new government discontinued the application process). Another six organizations were preparing their applications, but they failed to submit their projects before the discontinuation was announced. In the current inflationary scenario, the fund for the Roberto Arias programme would have been depleted if the applications of these six organizations had been approved. As such, the previous government administration, before leaving, approved a renewal of the fund for this programme. However, the new government did not complete the initial protocol and soon after revoked the decision, effectively terminating the programme.

A concern on the part of the regulator, ENACOM, was that only two organizations managed to present their projects, have them approved and sign the agreements. The project implementers understood that this could be a concern for ENACOM, but considered that this was due to the regulator not having previous experience working with community connectivity projects. For them, this amount of progress within this time frame seemed reasonable and respectful of the time availability and capacity of the organizations as they were sustaining a number of projects at the same time. In addition, several of the organizations were updating their legal status and financial statements in order to submit their projects, as well as applying for a licence.

Community networks summit

In terms of community organizing and mobilization, Argentina has provided national spaces for meeting and knowledge exchange, such as the Argentinian Community Network Summit (Cumbre Argentina de Redes Comunitarias), or CARC (n.d.).

The first summit was held on 31 November and 1 December 2019. Sixty-five participants from 25 organizations were present. Subsequent CARC summits have been held since then for coordination and information-sharing purposes. Several organizations that had been actively promoting and supporting community networks in the country, including AlterMundi and Atalaya Sur, participated in all the summits. Participants also included academics from the University of Buenos Aires, the National University of Córdoba, the National Inter-University Council (Consejo Interuniversitario Nacional), the Community, Alternative and Popular Communication Network (Red Interuniversitaria de Comunicación Comunitaria, Alternativa y Popular) and a number of activists and community organizations working at the national and local levels.

Prior to the CARC, many of the participants had undertaken community network activities, some individually, but many in cooperation with others. At the various summits, they provided advice and technical support to community organizations designing and building their own networks, advocated for more government support for the sector, provided training and generated interest in community network solutions for those coming from around the country. ENACOM’s programmes supporting community networks had not yet been formally announced when the first CARC summits were held, but it was known that the support was forthcoming. The CARC team met with various public and academic entities to highlight and promote the benefits of community networks. Both the VARC licence and the programmes were the result of a joint effort of ENACOM, the CARC team and AlterMundi. This multistakeholder process in itself was an important step during this period. The meetings between ENACOM, the CARC team and AlterMundi served as an opportunity to articulate the demands for changes in the licensing of community networks, for policies for interconnection with federal and provincially-owned backbone networks, for a specialized entity within ENACOM to support and collaborate with community networks, and for general improvements in price regulation.

The CARC began as a summit, but following the first summit, there was a proposal to transform it into a permanent body, changing the name from Argentinian Community Network Summit (Cumbre Argentina de Redes Comunitarias) to Argentinian Community Network Council (Consejo Argentina de Redes Comunitarias), while maintaining the CARC acronym. At the time of writing, the proposal had not been formalized, but the need for such a collective organization, be it the CARC or another similar organization, was articulated by community network activists, academics and government representatives interviewed for this chapter. Among the roles that such an organization could play, interviewees mentioned:

- > Training and support: Mentoring and learning by doing are proven methods for developing the technical and other skills needed to design, build and operate community networks. However, with hundreds of networks expected to come online over the next few years, the need for training will increase exponentially. Developing curriculum, coordinating training of trainers and related activities will help to meet the demand.

- > USF applications support: Establishing a centre for technical expertise to support community networks applying for USF funding. The Special Projects Division of ENACOM has tried to make its processes accessible and has even produced manuals in popular-education style to help applicants. However, ENACOM itself admits that there is a gap between the exigencies of government bureaucracies and the capacities of applicants from remote communities. (AlterMundi developed some materials specifically tailored to community networks to support the entire application process.) (AlterMundi, n.d ).

- > Coordination of technical support services: Community networks are expected to be able to handle routine maintenance, but there will be moments when higher-level technical support is needed.

- > Promoting linkage: Promotion and facilitation of linkage between networks and strengthening the organizational framework of the Argentinian Community Network Council in general.

- > Advocacy: Governments, their policies and their priorities can change rapidly in Argentina, or not change at all. There is a need for ongoing awareness raising and advocacy regarding the legitimacy of community networks and their contribution to the telecommunications ecosystem.

Several of the organizations associated with the CARC have been undertaking important activities such as those listed above at the national level, particularly in terms of training and support for organizations working to create community networks. AlterMundi, for example, supported more than 30 new community network projects (28 of which included covering the cost of equipment), using its seedbed methodology. This methodology is based on principles of popular education and community participation at all stages and is described in detail in a research report prepared by a team of researchers from the National University of Córdoba (Prato, 2020.) When the methodology could not be implemented in person because of the pandemic or due to long distances between CARC and the communities, CARC experimented with adapting aspects of the methodology. Now there are examples of delivering the support using messaging applications. AlterMundi has also provided technical advice and support to several groups seeking to apply for USF from the Roberto Arias programme.

Furthermore, an initiative led by the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires and supported by the Ministry of Social Development offered an online diploma programme in community networks (Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, n.d.). The programme, entitled Diploma in the Appropriation of Technologies for the Communication of Social Organizations, was intended for practitioners and activists working with social movements and organizations. The course consisted of eight modules with a class load of almost 100 hours. A portion of the syllabus was about community networks and was facilitated by AlterMundi. The programme started in December 2021 and concluded in February 2022, by which date the students had to submit their final project. The teaching team comprised more than 30 people, including academics and practitioners. More than 1 000 applications were received for the 300 spots available in the online diploma course.

4. Dynamics of change and conclusions

The progress seen in Argentina over the past ten years is impressive. The country’s community network sector appears to be on the verge of a period of significant expansion and change.

On the one hand, changes have been introduced into the legal and regulatory environment which are favourable to the telecommunications sector, particularly for communications services in rural and poor urban communities. These changes came about largely due to the combination of political opportunities arising from the pandemic and the commitment of the government to expand connectivity to poor and marginalized communities. Another important factor in facilitating these changes was the involvement of community network actors, largely from civil society, who were grounded in a decade of proven experience and who had a broad base of support at virtually all levels.

The legal and regulatory changes and civil-society advocacy have culminated in USF funds becoming available to community networks and in the creation of the Roberto Arias and Barrios Populares programmes, providing significant financial support for the development of networks in marginalized communities. For practitioners, the challenge will be around how to make use of, guide, adapt, protect and expand on this opportunity.

Policy and the universal service fund

The two programmes managed by ENACOM’s Special Projects Divisions are very positive developments. They are unique in Latin America, in both scale and scope. They were designed in close consultation with community network actors and, with few exceptions, have taken into consideration most of the concerns of these actors. The funds allocated to both programmes are substantial, and care has been taken to simplify application procedures and administrative and financial burdens, especially for small community networks with VARC licences.

The Roberto Arias programme exclusively supports community networks while the position of the Barrios Populares programme seems to be that, all other things being equal, community networks are preferred. Ensuring that all other things are equal will be a primary challenge for the community network actors, because the playing field may be tilted in favour of commercial applicants. For example, in the first step of the application process, commercial entities may have an advantage over rural or civil-society applicants due to their commercial knowledge and prior experience in business and in providing ICT services. It is not surprising that the community networks funded by the Barrios Populares programme and those that have completed applications for the Roberto Arias programme are largely those with prior experience in the telecommunications sector. But the next generation of applicants will have to include communities and organizations without this experience.

The Special Projects Division’s efforts to simplify the application process and its commitment to provide extra support to VARC licence holders may address this to some extent, but the division is under-resourced and not highly experienced in the area, at least not from the applicant’s perspective. Regardless of the Special Projects Division’s ability to provide support in the application process, this is only the first step in the licensing process. Community network actors will need additional support as they design and build their infrastructure and move along the path towards sustainability.

The Special Projects Division is aware of the issues and of its own limitations. Its role is to support the rolling out of networks, not to provide ongoing support or ensure their sustainability. As stated by Natalia Vinelli, then director of the Special Projects Division, this would ideally be resolved with a comprehensive policy framework:

We’re also trying to link them with public networks and nearby cooperatives that can provide some maintenance services, for example. We’re always looking for ways to do things better, but we know what we’re doing is applying patches, while what is needed to solve the problem is a comprehensive policy framework (N. Vinelli, personal communication, 2022).

Barring that framework, which is unlikely to appear, Vinelli agrees that strengthening the community network partner’s capacity to provide accompaniment and technical support for its collective group may go a long way towards ensuring productive access to the funds and ensuring the long-term viability of the funds. The division works with many of the key actors in the community network space, but also sees the value of an overall coordinating body.

Sadly, by the time of this publication (2024), ENACOM’s directors had stepped down and the regulatory agency was intervened for six months by three intervenors appointed by the government, who, in March 22, 2024 resolved to revoke[8] the increase in the amounts allocated to the Roberto Arias and Barrios Populares programmes, arguing that the additional amounts had not yet been executed, although new community networks had been approved for funding on 30 November 2023. This revocation could jeopardize the progress in telecommunications policies and regulations envisioned for the benefit of marginalized communities and may negatively impact the actual exercise of the digital rights of rural citizens who can only aspire to meaningful connectivity through community-based, non-profit initiatives. The future of these two programmes, which may have no or very little resources left after the revoking of their funding increases, is yet to be decided. Most market-oriented economies recognize the need for public subsidies to serve and provide universal access to fundamental services that enable the effective exercise of several human rights, even more so when the expansion of critical infrastructure such as broadband in the digital economy is at stake.

The community network sector and the CARC

The preceding sections of this chapter have made clear the strengths of many of the actors in Argentina’s community network space, the broad scope of actors involved, and the areas of theoretical and practical expertise covered. The accomplishments of the sector over the past decade are significant.

The CARC community network summit held in November/December 2019 was an important step towards developing a common vision and laying out next steps prior to the launch of the Barrios Populares and Roberto Arias programmes.

In the period following the summit, the community network movement grew. Several new networks were created even well before the USF programmes were established, and more are being added with USF support. Actors in the movement enjoyed significant influence in the design of the USF programmes, contributed to building a nationwide awareness campaign about community networks, and provided training and support to new networks.

The launch of the USF-funded programmes for networks in poor neighbourhoods and rural communities in 2021 and 2022 marked the beginning of a new phase for community networks in Argentina, yet it poses significant new challenges. On the one hand, the Roberto Arias programme alone has the potential to fund 75 new networks with its initial allotment of ARS 300 million (USD 3 million)and a per-network budget of ARS 4 million (USD 40 000). However the inflationary scenario in the country was going to lower the programme’s capacity to meet that potential. There are doubts as to whether ENACOM’s Special Projects Division could provide sufficient technical support for the application phase, and there are significant questions about where those 75 communities would find the technical and other support required to build 75 sustainable community networks. However, the seedbed methodology developed by AlterMundi has proven to be effective at building skilled, resilient human and connectivity networks in rural areas.

Proposals to create a more permanent capacity-building body to facilitate and coordinate activities to support the emerging networks are circulating. The form, the specific mandate and the strategic partners of such a body would have to be considered carefully, but areas of work already identified include: training and support, a centre of technical expertise, coordination of technical support services and advocacy.

Conclusion

The progress of community networks in Argentina during the period of 2019–2023 is undeniable and this progress has benefited the nation as a whole by promoting inclusion, the development of technical capacities among people in rural areas and informal settlements, and the expansion of internet access with affordable, open-source technology in areas where large-scale operators will not invest. The right to universal access to information and communication is meant to be a state policy that continues over time for the well-being of citizens and local economies (including rural economies), regardless of the party in power. The steps taken in Argentina to create an enabling environment through affordable access to ARSAT’s fiber backbone, the creation of VARC licences, Wi-Fi networks, the promotion of open-source software, and the creation of the Roberto Arias and Barrios Populares USF programmes have been recognized internationally as best practices consistent with the International Telecommunications Union’s Recommendation D-19, embedded in Argentina’s regulatory framework. It is an emblematic case of an enabling environment for community-centred connectivity and, at the time, spirits were highly positive and optimistic. The opportunity offered by the USF is accompanied however, by the striking decision of ENACOM’s intervenors on 22 March 2024, posing a tremendous risk as new resources for the above-mentioned programmes have been cancelled as of 2024 until such time as ENACOM decides to restructure and reorganize the USF programmes. In addition, there has been little dialogue between the government and communities since that decisive moment regarding potential next steps. It should be noted that this chapter does not cover extensively the recent events of late 2023 and 2024, which saw the change of government and an inflationary scenario, leading to a tremendous change in the trajectory of the community networks movement in the country. However, the multistakeholder programmes that were carried out provide a precedent to be considered and adapted by other countries seeking innovative ways to address their own challenges of digital exclusion.

References

AlterMundi. n.d. Cómo preparar la Carpeta Técnica del Programa Roberto Arias. In: AlterMundi. José de la Quintana, Argentina. [Cited May 2024.] https://altermundi.net/como-preparar-la-carpeta-tecnica-del-programa-roberto-arias/

AlterMundi. n.d. Semillero de Redes Comunitarias postulantes al Roberto Arias In: AlterMundi. José de la Quintana, Argentina. [Cited May 2024.] https://altermundi.net/altermundi/formacion-y-acompanamiento/semillero-de-redes-comunitarias-postulantes-al-roberto-arias/

Baladron, M., de Charras, D., Rivero, E. & Rossi, D. 2021. Argentina. Derecho a la Conectividad, desigualdad y actores no lucrativos. In: D. Monje, ed. (Des)iguales y (Des)conectados: políticas, actores y dilemas Info-comunicacionales en América Latina. Buenos Aires, CLACSO.

CARC (Cumbre Argentina de Redes Comunitarias). n.d. CARC. [Cited May 2024.] https://carc.libre.org.ar/

Cátedra Conectividad UNLP. 2021. Evolución de las Cooperativas TIC en Argentina. Serie Estudios Situados de Conectividad Informe No. 1. La Plata, Argentina. https://www.economiasolidaria.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Catedra-Conectividad-FUERTE-IMPRONTA-COOPERATIVAS-TIC-EN-ARG-Informe-1-2105.pdf

Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones. 2018. Resolución 4958/2018. In: Estado argentino. Buenos Aires. [Cited May 2024.] https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/resoluci%C3%B3n-4958-2018-313590/texto

Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones. 2022. Más conectividad para pequeñas localidades rurales y comunidades indígenas. In: Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones. Buenos Aires, Estado argentino. [Cited May 2024.] https://www.ENACOM.gob.ar/institucional/mas-conectividad-para-pequenas-localidades-rurales-y-comunidades-indigenas_n3892

Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones. 2023. Datos por Provincia. [Accessed May 2024.] https://indicadores.enacom.gob.ar/indicadores-provincia

Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. n.d. La Facultad y el Ministerio de Desarrollo Social lanzan una diplomatura sobre tecnologías y territorio. In: UBA Sociales. Buenos Aires. [Cited May 2024.] https://www.sociales.uba.ar/2021/07/08/la-facultad-y-el-ministerio-de-desarrollo-social-lanzan-una-diplomatura-sobre-tecnologias-y-territorio/

Federación de Cooperativas del Servicio Telefónico de la Zona Sur Ltda. 2020. Presentación Conjunta de FECOTEL y FECOSUR. In: Nuestra Revista. Buenos Aires. [Cited May 2024.] https://nuestrarevista.com.ar/presentacion-conjunta-de-fecotel-y-fecosur/

Integración Socio Urbana. 2018. ReNaBaP. In: Ministerio de Economía. Buenos Aires, Estado Argentino. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/desarrollosocial/renabap

Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros. 2023. Más del 95% de la Red Federal de Fibra Óptica ya está iluminada In: Estado argentino. Buenos Aires, Estado argentino. [Cited May 2024.] https://www.argentina.gob.ar/noticias/mas-del-95-de-la-red-federal-de-fibra-optica-ya-esta-iluminada

Natalia, V. & Suarez, M., eds. 2023. Los desconectados. Políticas públicas para el acceso a internet en barrios populares y parajes rurales. Mil Campanas.

Prato, A.V., Weckesser, C. & Segura, M.S. 2020. AlterMundi y la primera red comunitaria de Internet cien por ciento LibreRouter y extendida durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Cordoba, Centro de Investigaciones de la Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba http://democratizarcomunicacion.fcc.unc.edu.ar/wp-content/blogs.dir/27/files/sites/27/AlterMundi-y-la-primera-red-comunitaria-de-Internet-cien-por-ciento-LibreRouter-y-extendida-durante-la-pandemia-de-COVID-19.pdf

[1] The Digital Argentina Act defines ICT services as services “that transport or distribute signals or data, such as voice, text, videos or images ... over telecommunication networks”. The licence for community networks is entitled Servicio de Valor Agregado-Acceso a Internet, Titulares de Redes Comunitarias (Value-added internet services access, community networks) commonly known as VARC. The other type of licence is the licence for value-added services for commercial internet service providers.

[2] In 2021 the fund collected approximately ARS 11 billion, roughly USD 100 million.

[3] Argentina’s high inflation from 2019 to 2023, averaging 70 percent annually, and rapid currency devaluation make year-on-year comparisons difficult. In June 2020, the first ARS 1 billion allocated were worth about USD 14 million. A year and a half later, the ARS 2 billion supplement was equivalent to about USD 20 million. At the risk of over-simplifying, this report considers the rate in November 2021, when ARS 100 was equal to USD 1.

[4] Natalia Vinelli, director of the Special Projects Division, explained that while ENACOM encouraged non-profit, community-owned and operated networks, “Our objective was the that the neighbourhoods get internet access. If that is with self-managed community network projects, great. But not all neighbourhoods have the capacity to provide the services, the maintenance and so on. (...) Applicants will have to be able to ensure the ongoing financial viability of their projects” (personal communication, 2022).

[5] Most of the projects that were not approved failed to provide complete documentation or to respond to questions. Many simply disappeared, highlighting the difficulties that become apparent at the interface between government bureaucracies and historically disenfranchised communities.

[6] For more information on the Roberto Arias programme, see: https://www.apc.org/en/blog/groundbreaking-government-programme-opens-way-community-based-connectivity-argentina.

[7] Whether this is enough remains to be seen. Even the director of Special Projects questioned this; saying it was the best that could be negotiated within ENACOM and that it would be reviewed following the first round of projects.

[8] The resolutions adopted as Item 14 (allocation of an additional ARS 20 billion [USD 200 million] for the Barrios Populares Programme and Item 15 (allocation of an additional ARS 1.5 billion [USD 15 million] to the Roberto Arias programme) of the 93rd session of the Agenda of the Board of Directors of ENACOM were cancelled on 22 March 2024 by all three intervenors. More information on the official decision is available at: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/305172/20240326?busqueda=2

Chapter 12

Civil society’s struggle towards an enabling environment for inclusive rural communication services: Oaxaca and Puebla, Mexico

Authors:

Seán Ó. Siochrú

Nexus Research Cooperative

Kathleen Diga

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Carlos Rey-Moreno

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Erick Huerta Velazquez

Redes por la Diversidad, Equidad y Sustentabilidad A.C. (REDES A.C.)

Adriana Labardini Inzunza

Rhizomatica

1. Introduction

This chapter examines community-owned networks in rural, largely indigenous areas of Mexico. Section 2 describes the country’s telecommunications-policy landscape, which has enabled the emergence of mobile telecommunications networks in rural areas, established through the efforts of remote communities, Indigenous Communities and civil society organizations. It then describes the ongoing challenges in the implementation of these networks. Section 3 describes two case studies of community-owned networks, one in Oaxaca and one in Puebla, describing the technology they use, how they were built and the challenges they faced, as well as the relevance of community connectivity and the future perspectives of the networks. Finally, Section 4 describes some of the dynamics of change in the country’s telecommunications sector and broadly reimagines the future of the sector as it evolves in support of rural development.

2. Building an enabling environment

Disruptive innovations have arisen in the rural telecommunications ecosystem in some countries, particularly in remote areas, where larger, for-profit operators are unwilling to provide services. In some key respects, Mexico has been at the forefront of efforts to create an enabling environment for such innovations, namely community-owned networks in rural areas, often in Indigenous Communities. Most of these networks enable both voice and data communication as well as indirectly supporting rural development activities. The situation in Mexico emerged from the convergence of several historic and policy factors that created fertile ground for the growth of community networks.

Key factors included the following:

- > Indigenous Communities, which have specific rights under the Mexican Constitution,[1] began to assert these rights over the last several decades. Some issues around communication rights were resolved through the courts, and in recent times, the courts have ruled in favour of the communities’ right to self-determination with regard to the development of mobile telephone services.

- > A strong community-broadcast radio movement emerged and has persevered for decades. This was key in terms of regulation, licensing and access to spectrum for community radio stations, including those established by Indigenous Communities. (Although many communities chose to operate their local radios without a licence.) Mobilization efforts within the movement are coordinated by organizations such as the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters; Redes por la Diversidad, Equidad y Sustentabilidad (known by its Spanish acronym, REDES); Red de Comunicadores Boca de Polen; Ojo de Agua Comunicación; and the long-established radio stations, Radio Teocelo and Radio Hayacocotla. The role of the indigenous radio stations, promoted by the federal government, has also been very important.

- > Another non-governmental organization (NGO), Rhizomatica, founded in 2009, took a crucial step forward by pioneering community networks with telephony services, using low-cost technologies and open-source software. Rhizomatica trained grassroots communities to build their own 2G mobile telephony networks. Rhizomatica then teamed up with REDES and focused on developing the idea in Indigenous Communities in the State of Oaxaca.

- > A further critical factor is that a number of Indigenous Communities are already organized as highly autonomous entities, with strong capacity to develop their own collective institutional structures and to develop community services through a collective approach. A core cultural principle, applied especially when appropriating changes from outside their communities, is that the mode of organization and decision-making is at least as important as the end goal, which lends itself to a highly active and participatory community approach to building their community networks.

Leveraging the potential of sustainable community-owned networks required an enabling environment that encouraged Indigenous People to develop solutions to their telecommunications needs. And indeed over the last decade, with significant effort, Indigenous Communities and other grassroots communities have established stable, growing networks. Although there has been significant success in this field, it continues to be a work in progress, and the absence of larger providers in remote areas and of a universal service fund to provide continuous financial support for these community-owned networks remains a significant obstacle to growth or replication.

Civil society leveraging constitutional and legal potential

The efforts of civil society organizations have been instrumental in realizing the communication rights of underserved rural regions. In late 2011, Rhizomatica was working in the Oaxacan town of Talea de Castro, an Indigenous Community of about 2 500 people, helping them build a GSM network. The network was launched in March 2013 as a community-owned entity called Red Celular de Talea (Talea Mobile Network), which initially operated without a licence. It was the first community-owned GSM network in Mexico. A model of how to replicate this in other remote locations began to emerge, and soon a process of building similar networks in neighbouring communities of Oaxaca was underway.

While this first community network was being built and following major constitutional reform in 2013, the new Federal Law on Telecommunications and Broadcasting was being drafted, and in 2014, was passed. Following strategic, multipronged advocacy by REDES, Rhizomatica and other organizations, this law (in Article 67, Section 4) made it possible for communities to apply for two new types of communication service licences: a Community Social Use Concession for non-profit entities directly run by their communities and an Indigenous Social Use Concession (including radio and TV), with a special focus on the promotion of indigenous cultures and traditions, both to be issued at no cost. The licences have no limits to the size of the community to be served. It is important to note that these special licences allow communities to deliver any communication services, including radio, video, GSM, internet service provision (ISP) or fixed broadband.

The licences are issued by the Mexican telecommunications regulator, Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT). Alongside these communication-service licences, a further licence is required in the case of wireless services for the use of spectrum. (The IFT reserves a small segment of frequencies for use by social-use-concession holders, at no cost.)

Responding to the opportunities provided by the new law, Rhizomatica, REDES and more than a dozen communities already experimenting with 2G networks, formed a new organization, called Telecomunicaciones Indígenas Comunitarias (Community Indigenous Telecommunications, or TIC). TIC became the vehicle through which Indigenous Communities could secure the needed licences. The communities working with TIC could also act collectively as a means to share some costs, pool their expertise and jointly negotiate with external parties. TIC, based in the city of Oaxaca, would also provide training and technical assistance to existing community networks, and facilitate the emergence of new networks.

In 2016, TIC became the first entity to be issued a GSM (2G) social-purpose licence – an Indigenous Social Use Concession for five states in Mexico for 30 years,[2] and a 15-year licence for a small segment of spectrum (2+2 MHz).[3] TIC also became the first entity in the world to provide community-owned and managed GSM service. TIC and its partners began actively expanding into new towns and villages, with each community contributing funds for a base station, mast, transmitter and power, and launching low-cost 2G telephony services. The technology and the model continued evolving, accompanied by ongoing innovation in software and infrastructure development. For example, the 2G service has access to the internet via a local ISP, as it connects outside the community through Voice over Internet Protocol. Further innovations included incorporating messaging through applications similar to Telegram and, more recently, the incorporation of a Starlink satellite connection enables them to provide 2.5 G and Wi-Fi connections given the substantial increase in bandwidth.

By the end of 2017, 17 community networks were operating, serving over 60 villages, with a combined population of around 20 000 people, and with around 2 850 stable monthly subscribers for their 2G service.

Changing the official mindset

This groundbreaking work in the emergence of community networks in Mexico grew steadily, with key organizations taking full advantage of the opportunities emerging from various constitutional, legal and regulatory changes. From an early stage, however, the advocates of community networks believed that continued success would prove impossible without a change in the culture and mindset of the regulators and policymakers themselves. Policymakers recognized the serious challenge in bringing telephony to Mexico’s smaller and more distant towns.[4] However, given their background and experience, they regarded this as a case of market failure. Thus, the conventional solution was to provide mainstream service providers with subsidies or to impose licence obligations to encourage them to serve these remote areas. Yet in implementing this strategy, it became clear to the IFT that this conventional approach was not working. Neither the business model nor the service development and delivery model of mainstream service providers was suited to tackling the challenge, even with incentives.[5] Community-network advocates, on the other hand, argued that the problem was the presence of significant market entry barriers blocking local community actors and organizations that have both the incentive and the capacity to develop telephony services in these areas. The policy regime in Mexico largely worked against the participation of local community actors, with high spectrum licence fees; strict spectrum licence conditions (such as demanding national coverage); very high annual fees for spectrum allocation; cumbersome application and bidding processes, often requiring a nationwide presence; and training and education institutions offering skills relevant only to mainstream service providers. The IFT had inherited a practice of engaging primarily with mainstream service providers, which had shaped their understanding and parameters of what was possible in telecommunications. Of the seven commissioners appointed in 2013, only one had a background that enabled her to be familiar with and advocate in favour of inclusion and the public interest through community-centred models.

In parallel with their on-the-ground work of building community networks, REDES launched a set of activities to engage the regulators and policymakers directly, in order to raise their awareness and capacities with respect to community networks. In addition, the Community Telecommunications and Broadcasting Technician Training Programme (Techio Comunitario), a collective effort established in 2016 by many organizations working with Indigenous Communities, contributed significantly to policymaker engagement. Aside from providing technical training to communities on the installation, maintenance and operation of their community networks and radios, Techio Comunitario conducts policy-advocacy activities, including actively interpreting the new laws and regulatory requirements and lobbying for fit-for-purpose rules, towards enabling community networks. In 2014, a group trained by Techio Comunitario succeeded in joining the Mexican delegation to an ITU event and helped to secure recognition of community networks at the global level.[6] This recognition was further strengthened through successful lobbying of the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (an entity within the Organization of American States) to encourage all Latin American member states (including Mexico) to endorse this policy recommendation through a strongly worded and tightly targeted resolution.[7]

The TIC social-use licences can reasonably be seen as a success resulting from the cumulative efforts primarily of civil society organizations, but many challenges remained in order to extend community networks further in Mexico.

After 2015, when the IFT implemented the first indigenous consultation under Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention) in San Cristobal de las Casas Chiapas and other indigenous territories, the IFT became more empathetic and responsive to (albeit often with significant delays), ideas and submissions from community-network actors. The regulator understood that community networks had the potential to address part of the access gap. However, other policymakers and government agencies had yet to seriously acknowledge the relevance of community networks. Furthermore, the absence of a universal service fund still meant that there was no reliable source of initial capital or subsidies for a community contemplating building their own infrastructure. In addition, to a degree, national bureaucracies were also still acting as through the regulatory changes in support of community networks did not exist. One example of this was particularly egregious. Despite the regulation providing clear licensing-fee exemption for indigenous community networks, the authorities were still demanding the payment of tax on the assigned spectrum.

TIC, with the support of REDES, decided to take legal action to correct this situation. Supported by pro bono legal experts, TIC filed an injunction to vindicate their position regarding the licence-fee exemption. The case ended up in the supreme court. On 13 January 2021, the supreme court ruled that the assigned spectrum should be available for free to Indigenous Communities. But the detailed judgement went considerably further. Using the term “a policy of difference” (in Spanish, “política de la diferencia”), the court established that the state must take whatever regulatory and policy affirmative actions are needed for Indigenous People to vindicate their constitutional rights:

This constitutional right is rooted in the recognition of the value of multiculturalism and constitutionalizes the obligation to design a policy of difference, in order to reconcile the universal value of human rights with the multicultural composition of Mexican society. Thus, the legislator is obliged to use affirmative measures for minorities to defend their identity and claim recognition.[8]

While this does not guarantee that it will not be necessary in the future to resolve related issues in the courts, this particular court ruling strongly tips the scales in favour of positive future outcomes for Indigenous Communities in such cases.

Overall, then, significant progress has been made in terms of regulations, including the licensing regimes of community-owned networks, largely thanks to coordinated, consistent and long-term strategic pressure and advocacy from civil society.

This achievement has often been driven by an active strategy of “creating facts on the ground”; that is, presenting cases that have demonstrated the real potential for communities to engage in building and operating their own networks. The following sections present two case studies in rural areas, both driven by the coordinated activity of Rhizomatica, REDES and TIC.

3. Case studies

This section presents two community-network case studies in the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Puebla. Specifically, the developments in the State of Oaxaca are outlined from two aspects: the technical aspect and the use of the digital services by the rural communities. The second case study follows the activities and developments in the State of Puebla. This section concludes by exploring developments in relation to gender and community networks.

Community networks: Oaxaca

2G networks and sustainability

In Oaxaca, 17 community networks were operating by 2023, and a clearer picture emerged regarding their structures, activities and sustainability.

Detailed figures provided by TIC indicate that across all seventeen networks, users have grown from about 2 850 in 2017 to 4 319 in 2021.[9] These figures show a very slight drop since 2020, suggesting that the number of users has reached a plateau. TIC believes that this is partially due to the fact that the 2G networks cannot offer data downloads at the speeds people want. It is also noteworthy that the number of subscribers in one community network fell significantly after the national provider, Telcel, extended its service to the community.

Subscribers are charged a basic monthly tariff of MXN 42 (about USD 2.20) for the service. They can make unlimited calls and send unlimited SMS messages within the community, and receive unlimited calls and SMS messages from anywhere. The rates for making calls outside the network are as follows:

- > to the United States of America: MXN 0.18 per minute (almost USD 0.01 per minute);

- > to Mexican landlines: MXN 0.28 per minute (about USD 0.015 per minute);

- > to Mexican mobiles: MXN 0.98 per minute (about USD 0.05 per minute).

The low tariffs for calls to the United States of America and the ability to receive calls from the United States of America free of charge are important, since many families in Oaxaca have family members who have emigrated to that country and need to be in touch with them frequently.

According to TIC, subscriber charges and the distribution of this income are calculated so as to cover all costs and enable sustainability. The breakdown of the MXN 42 monthly subscription fee is as follows:

- > MXN 2 (USD 0.11, 5 percent of the monthly fee) goes to a common emergency fund, to enable the community to cover the expenses of unexpected events that might damage the equipment;[10]

- > MXN 15 (USD 0.80, 35 percent of the monthly fee) goes to TIC, as a fee to cover their operating expenses and staff who, in turn, provide network maintenance and technical support, and offer training and legal advice;

- > MXN 25 (USD 1.33, 60 percent of the monthly fee) is held as a community fee, to cover the network’s operating expenses, including internet backhaul, electricity, administration and office costs.[11]

At start-up, the community networks are supplied with the telecommunications equipment and technical support needed. They are expected to pay upfront the initial capital cost of the equipment, which can vary from about MXN 150 000 (almost USD 8 000) to twice that much, depending on the technical design. The community also provides a location for the antenna, premises for the base station and administration, and security. So far, all but a few of the smallest networks have fully recouped the initial capital cost within three years, largely through donations from within the community, including from local businesses, local government and, often, relatives living in the United States of America. Operating costs are covered from the subscriber fees. Operating costs include costs of backhaul to connect externally, which comprises a symmetrical 2 Mbps connection provided by a local ISP, costing between MXN 800 (around USD 42) and MXN 2000 (approximately USD 106 per month).

TIC itself employs ten staff: three work in technical areas, three in non-technical liaison and community building, one is the manager, and the rest of the staff work in administration and public relations. Initially, all staff were based in TIC’s office in the City of Oaxaca. But there was some concern among management and the board that the organization had become too centralized and was not maximizing its capacity-building and maintenance potential for the communities themselves. TIC then developed a personnel plan to decentralize their structure. For instance, a local person in the community could be fully trained in network support and maintenance and could be employed by TIC to provide support to several community networks relatively close to each other. At present, some of the staff are members of the communities and work from the communities. They travel to Oaxaca only as needed. The administrative staff, on the other hand, is based in Mexico City, including a new liaison person who commutes often from the capital to different communities in order to expand their mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) services.

In 2019, TIC received a capacity-building grant and engaged in wider activities together with several partners through a Local Networks initiative[12] grant mechanism for civil society organizations. The activities included piloting intranet platforms for local content creation with local partners and accessing as well as designing an long-term evolution (LTE) network with remote communities in Puebla and Veracruz. TIC also received grant funding for its work with the local cooperative, Unión de Cooperativas Tosepan. TIC also has grants from other sources and directs these towards other activities related to community networks. However, its support activities for the 2G networks are fully funded from the income received from the local communities.

Table 1 shows the income in 2017 and 2021 from the monthly tariff. Additional income is also generated from top-ups.

Table 1. Income from Oaxaca 2G networks, 2017 and 2021

Source

2017

2021

MXN

USD

MXN

USD

Common fund

41 014

2 181

86 992

4 627

Community fee

855 225

45 491

1 295 550

68 910

TIC fees

513 135

27 293

777 330

41 346

Top-ups

784 949

41 751

876 588

46 625

Total

1 409 374

74 964

2 159 872

114 883

According to TIC, the income shown in Table 1 is sufficient to cover all costs associated with the service provision, including costs at the local level and TIC’s costs, as well as providing an amount for the community to use in case of emergency. Beyond this, there is a small surplus which covers additional community activities. Most of the top-up income is retained by TIC, which covers associated expenses.

Community network use

The communities make use of the networks in various ways. TIC’s community-support workers observe that voice telephony facilitates (and sometimes even greatly eases) a range of economic, social and cultural activities. These activities include organizing events and meetings, providing low-cost communication with family and friends abroad, dealing with health emergencies, addressing criminal activity, farming (for instance, calling for assistance when crops are endangered), comparing prices and charges for economic transactions, and other everyday social and economic activities.[13] The community-support workers noted that the specific combination of uses and priorities varies considerably from one community to the next, depending on their circumstances. One prime example of the benefit of the community networks is from a community in Oaxaca where taxi income increased by 35 percent with the operation of the community network. People from nearby towns who had no local taxi service would have to walk to the main town to hail a taxi. Today, a simple phone call enables them to get a taxi, saving the passengers time and significantly increasing the incomes of taxi drivers.

A significant factor for all the Indigenous Communities in this region, related to their sociocultural organization, is that they value the fact that they can own and run the networks themselves. Thus, a major perceived benefit is that the networks contribute to their autonomy and to their strong sense of agency and cohesion. Thus, the community-managed networks have symbolic value for the Indigenous Communities, beyond the benefits they might provide to other communities. The process of reaching the current state of autonomy of the networks included a series of participatory meetings held in each community, initiated by TIC, but then generally organized by the communities themselves. This collective process allowed time for the communities to reflect on and examine the relevance and desirability of building a network and developing complementary digital services on the network.[14] Some communities have also integrated the administration of the network into their existing autonomous governance and management structures – nominating people to work on the project as part of the indigenous customary government structure, demonstrating that they have taken ownership of the network.

Overall, the evidence shows that 2G community networks in Oaxaca are financially and institutionally sustainable and are delivering a valuable service. The income TIC obtains from the networks is sufficient to enable TIC to provide the maintenance and support services needed to keep the service running.

New directions: a combined 2G/4G network

In 2019, TIC decided to initiate a 4G pilot in the town of Santa Inés de Zaragoza, in Oaxaca, with the use of mixed grant funding and with the participation of researchers from the University of Washington. The town already had a 2G network, and the goal was to test whether the delivery of a combined 2G/4G service was technically feasible. TIC developed a temporary installation for 50 users, and the pilot was concluded successfully.

The broader strategy, building on the pilot, was to move towards offering the 2G/4G combination to all communities. TIC envisaged extending the 2G/4G option to up to five existing community networks in 2022. Yet there were significant technical and regulatory obstacles.

The technical goal is to integrate the open-source base station software, currently used for 2G, to be capable of fully accommodating 4G service. TIC is working on this with Osmocom, an international open-source umbrella project based in Germany. A trial deployment has demonstrated that the basic functions can be performed. But further development is required to ensure that it is fully robust in practice and able to accommodate virtually all mobile phone brands as well as billing and payment transactions from a large number of users. At the time of writing, several networks are running 4G internet services with approximately 50 users and are expecting the number of users to increase once a stable trial has been deployed. However, an appropriate business model has yet to be fully developed. In addition to the 4G service, TIC is also working on the implementation of 2G + Wi-Fi within the mix of service offerings. The work of finding the correct mix of services for rural user demand is ongoing.

As to the base station, TIC is deploying several options. Two purpose-built 4G base stations have been purchased from a Chinese company, Baicells, for immediate use. These can work alongside the existing 2G base stations. However, this is an expensive solution. The 4G and 2G combined base stations each cost approximately USD 5 000, with a deployment cost of about USD 10 000.

A second, more complex but much cheaper option, is being developed as a long-term solution: the use of second-hand Ericsson 4G base stations that can handle both 2G and 4G simultaneously, and can be purchased (at the time of writing) for between USD 1 000 and USD 1 500. Given the rollout of 5G in wealthy countries, many more of these second-hand base stations are likely to come on the market. Furthermore, bulk buying could further reduce the cost. The Osmocom software (when completed) will run on these base stations and provide a very low-cost solution for future 2G/4G community networks, not just in Mexico but worldwide.

The Ericsson single base station solution has already been tested for combined 2G/4G use, using the Osmocom software, and is being implemented in a pilot in the State of Puebla.[15]

A second challenge to 4G expansion is obtaining a spectrum licence. TIC already has a licence to provide a range of communication services, including 4G. However, a separate licence is needed for the spectrum. For its 2G service, TIC has been granted permission to use a small section in the 850 MHz band. For 4G, TIC has applied to the IFT for a licence in the 900 MHz band, seeking 6 MHz for transmission and 6 MHz for reception. This will accommodate both 2G (1 MHz) and 4G (5 MHz). The licence application was submitted in early 2020 and in 2022 the IFT granted TIC the 4G licence. The licence should cover spectrum across the five states where TIC currently operates, but there is potential for the license to apply also throughout Mexico.

This wider move to a combined 2G/4G service, rolled out across all the communities that wish to have it, is a multifaceted project, which has received funding from a combination of grant funding sources. However, it should be noted that once the Ericsson equipment is deployed, upgrading a community from 2G to 4G entails few additional costs, requiring mainly software updates and the cost to assign appropriate spectrum. The additional bandwidth required for internet access, however, could add more significant costs. TIC may consider partnering with a local wireless ISP and becoming a partner in the 4G network.

Community networks: Puebla

In a major development, TIC and its partners began working in the State of Puebla, specifically with an Indigenous Community in the Sierra Norte. This has developed into a number of activities, most of them implemented in close partnership with the network of cooperatives and civil society organizations Unión de Cooperatives Tosepan Titataniske[16] (UCTT).

Unión de Cooperativas Tosepan Titataniske

The UCTT comprises eight regional cooperatives and three civil society organizations, which together represent over 400 local cooperatives in 26 municipalities across the northeastern, mountainous region of the State of Puebla. The UCTT serves about 34 000 families, 76 percent of whom are indigenous Masehual and Tutunaku families, each tribe having its own language. The UCTT headquarters is located in the town of Cuetzalan del Progreso, the largest town in the area. UCTT member organizations cover a wide range of activities across the economic, social and cultural lives of these communities. They include coffee cooperatives, credit unions and a university, among other organizations.

The decision of TIC and its supporting organizations to partner with a long-established organization with significant capacity such as the UCTT, was a deliberate and strategic move, representing a new model of supporting and expanding community networks. The UCTT has direct links with communities across a large part of the state, reaching a potential user base which is ten times that of all the users in the current community networks in Oaxaca. It also has decentralized structures, strong institutional capacity and established practices that ensure that all levels, from regional to local, are run by the Indigenous Communities themselves. This is seen as a further development of the TIC model itself, because its prior linkages with the Indigenous Communities and networks were more formal than organic.

The relationship between the UCTT and TIC began in 2016 when Bonifacio Iturbide, the then UCTT treasurer and director of the local radio station, took the Techio course. In 2019, several young people, already trained in community communication issues, attended another experiential learning event, called the Semillero (seedbed) which took place in Cherán K’eri, in the State of Michoacán. At that point, serious planning began among the UCTT trainees, which led to a community network project that received grant funding. After further discussions, and with support from REDES and Rhizomatica, it was decided that a UCTT member cooperative, Tosepan Limakxtum, would take responsibility for moving the community network activities forward. Tosepan Limakxtum was already running the community radio and other communication-related activities, and added to their mandate the building of the community network, which would be called Wiki Katat (which means “come”, in both the Masehual and Tutunaku indigenous languages).

After approval by the UCTT assembly, a project plan was developed to build a pilot LTE network.[17] The network license was to be requested from the regulator and granted to TIC. At first, the assembly had thought to use secondary spectrum sharing in the 700 MHz range, but this spectrum allocation had yet to be negotiated with the IFT. So when the LTE, or 900 MHz range, became available to TIC, the group adopted this plan. A further component of the plan was to support the communities in creating local content, building on the communication and media activities of Tosepan Limakxtum, thus strengthening the local digital culture and ensuring it would contribute to local autonomy and development. This content would be available through an intranet. TIC was to provide the technical expertise, and REDES was to lead the advocacy and legal aspects needed to gain access to spectrum.

The project proceeded with a further proposal to the IFT to access shared spectrum, which would require that the regulation be amended. The communities targeted for the pilot networks (seven or eight communities) convened community-wide assemblies, each of which appointed representatives to oversee the process on behalf of the community.

Network development began in the town of Reyeshogpan, as decided by the assembly of the UCTT. The town’s 2 000 inhabitants had almost no connectivity. The project established an office in a municipal facility and, via an agreement with a local ISP, shared an antenna situated at the highest point above the town. The project also set up two local antennae in the town. It deployed an Ericsson base station to conduct the pilot with around 50 trial users, some in nearby villages, who receive the signal directly. The users were not charged as the network was not yet fully operational. Several members of the community operated the network on a voluntary basis. The main uses of the network were similar to those in Oaxaca.

During the course of the pilot, a new and very different possibility opened up to develop the community networks in a different direction.

A mobile virtual network operator

Altán is a government-licensed wholesale provider of 4G mobile phone service. While it cannot offer services directly to consumers – those services must be offered by a third party MVNO – they are obliged by the government (which paid for the network) to provide network coverage to 92 percent of the Mexican population by 2024. Essentially, Altán offers a turnkey solution for third parties to sell and manage the 4G service as a commercial operation. The initiative has seen the launch of commercial MVNOs in many cities in Mexico, but smaller and more remote areas are proving to be commercially and organizationally uninteresting to these commercial entities.

After many discussions with Altán, advocates of community networks had discounted this option in the past since the cost of an initial MVNO licence is about MXN 2 million (over USD 106 000) and the customer subscription packages were, by necessity, priced beyond the means of most rural communities. However, Altán had heard of Tosepan and TIC’s proposal to deploy 4G, and in 2020 negotiated with them directly concerning the use of the Altán network instead. (It should be noted that the Altán network has much better coverage in Puebla than in Oaxaca.) An agreement was reached between Altán and TIC/Wiki Katat whereby there would be special conditions for indigenous social operators serving rural areas.

Today, the Wiki Katat MVNO charges MXN 25 (USD 1.33) for a SIM, and MXN 120 (USD 6.38) per month for all calls and for 5 Gb of data. In addition, subscribers can have weekly access to 5 Gb of data on the community intranet. The comparable Telcel service (where available) also costs MXN 25 for a SIM, but costs MXN 50 (USD 2.66) per week (about MXN 200 pesos, or around USD 10 per month), with a 2 Gb per week limit. However, Telcel connectivity in these remote areas tends to be unstable compared to the Altán offering.[18]

Having an MVNO means that, in effect, the community can avoid the burden of developing the physical network, the numbering and routing requirements, technical support and backhaul agreements. Tosepan/Wiki Katat is responsible for selling the SIM cards, managing the finances and overseeing the network, as well as developing content and creating and managing the intranet.

The decision to go with the Altán offering was not taken lightly by TIC or by the UCTT. Community ownership and control of the network is, as noted, a central concept of the UCTT, and the MVNO does not offer that. It leaves the community much more open to external factors that might dictate the terms on which they can offer the service. Indeed the contract with Altán is only as strong as Altán itself, which at the time of writing is currently under commercial pressure. A consideration in moving forward was that if they did not negotiate an agreement, another commercial organization might take up the licence and serve only the larger towns in the area. (Telcel, for instance, already serves Cuetzalan and some larger towns and these might be feasible for a commercial MVNO.) Thus the MVNO offered the communities a level of control over where, and under what terms, the 4G service would be offered.

A social business plan is being prepared by Wiki Katat, and in the preparation of this plan, there have been numerous workshops run by the communities that would be served by the MNVO during the inception stage, covering all aspects of the proposed service. The breakdown of subscriber income has already been determined. Approximately 55 percent of the income will go to Altán, leaving 45 percent to be divided between the various community actors. However, many factors can affect this income distribution. For instance, users may use roaming and other services with additional tariffs. As such, there may be times when Altán will receive 70 percent of the income and the community actors will receive 30 percent. From the income that is received by the community actors, a small portion of it will go to cost-recovery to vendors (that is, to community cooperatives run by volunteers) and any surplus will go to other community projects related to the network. Another (smaller) portion of the income will go towards a common fund for community content creation for the intranet.

Although the Wiki Katat service is has been operating since about October 2021, promotion and dissemination are only just getting underway. Initially, in 2021, there were 40 active paying users, mainly in the town of Cuetzalan, most of whom subscribed and had learned about the service by word of mouth. A sales office is shortly to be opened in the centre of the town, and promotion will be conducted on Tosepan community radio, among other channels.

In the future, the promotion and growth of the service will rely on the member cooperatives throughout the UCTT territory, who will organize the sale and distribution of subscriber SIM cards locally, supported by Wiki Katat. Many community members have expressed a strong interest in having the MNVO service, and the necessary arrangements are underway. Although the precise number is not available, it is estimated that at least 50 Indigenous Communities (of the approximately 400 communities where the UCTT has members), are covered by the Altán network. Since the service has an interconnection agreement with Telcel, Wiki Katat services can also be sold and used in areas where Telcel offers services but Altán does not.

Given the low costs involved, TIC and Wiki Katat are very confident about the economic viability and sustainability of this approach. Since the time of publication, there are now around 3 000 users of Wiki Katat and the number is growing.

Building local content

Local content and community usage of both the planned LTE network in Reyeshogpan and the MVNO option are being explored and developed. Content development activities in Reyeshogpan, based on their intranet, began in 2018. A pilot was launched in the nearby town of San Antonio Rayón, as the community members had expressed strong interest in developing local content to share on an intranet during the preparatory assemblies. The intranet comprises a Wi-Fi mesh network that was installed in February 2020 during a Techio camp. The network covers most of the town’s 1 000 or so inhabitants. It is managed by the president of the local Rayon Cooperative, and most of the users are members of the cooperative. The intranet was intentionally not connected to the internet as the goal is to develop and share content locally. However, using an application called Talkie, users of the Wi-Fi network have voice interactivity within the intranet.

Unfortunately, content development has been delayed. Between 2020 and 2021, the Rayon Cooperative Committee was preparing video and music material, and was proposing to include information on events. However, just as promotion of the new content was to begin, in August 2021, a major hurricane caused severe damage throughout the region, and knocked down the main Wi-Fi antenna (and the roof to which it was attached). At the time of publication, the community is replacing the infrastructure. The Committee continues to develop the local content and meets every month.

As compared to the LTE option, the community ownership element of MVNOs is relatively weak. For this reason, those involved in deploying the latter feel that the community content and use of services on an intranet is particularly important. Wiki Katat staff, currently comprising seven people (a few of whom are employed on temporary government schemes), is receiving additional training to support communities in developing dedicated community communication plans, which can include the use of radio, video and internet productions. Consideration will also be given to developing or sourcing open-source applications, for instance for taxi hailing or other economic activities.

Communities in San Antonio Rayón have expressed interest is documenting and presenting aspects of their culture (often through audio or video recordings of the older members of their communities), including traditional medicines, stories, poetry and legends in the two indigenous languages of Masehual and Tutunaku. They are also interested in promoting traditions and ways of life, such as weaving and land preservation. Larger projects, such as the defence of indigenous territory against land-grabbers, illegal loggers and mining activity, including by multinationals, are also being explored. Several videos have already been produced and more local content is currently in production.

Gender-related activities

Gender-related activities of the organizations supporting and operating the community networks generally aim to create an environment that is conducive to women’s participation. This includes building women’s capacity and providing them with the necessary resources to participate more fully at every level of the network. For instance, there are opportunities to create welcoming, safe spaces for women to share and learn together. The vision of the organizations supporting the community networks is that, as the community network movement grows, the role of and opportunities for women will also grow.

A number of actions aimed at increasing women’s participation in and use of community networks are already underway in Mexico. In this regard, TIC is undertaking the restructuring and retraining of its operational team. An immediate goal of this is that a community networks’ first interaction with TIC be with a woman. These initial contacts are very often from women at the community level seeking technical support. The idea is for the support to be provided by a woman. The hope is that having women technical support personnel at the front lines will break the stereotype of technicians being men and potentially ease the process of assistance. Until recently, three male staff members were concerned almost exclusively with technical issues, while three female staff were concerned with community development issues. The intention is for the male staff to engage more with the social development issues, and the wider goal is for the roles to be fully shared.

The Hackers Comunitarias collective is a particularly important stand-alone action. It is run by and for women, and focuses on women’s priorities around local content. It is run by a collective of 11 women; four are based in Xocoyolo, close to Cuetzalan del Progreso in the State of Puebla;[19] another four (one of whom was involved previously in Techio Comunitario) are based in Cherán K’eri, in the State of Michoacan; and the other three are associated with REDES and Wiki Katat. The collective brings together both Indigenous and non-Indigenous women. Hackers Comunitarias current focus is on upgrading Cherán K’eri´s intranet and developing an intranet in Xocoyolo.

Cherán K’eri´s intranet has existed since 2019, creating a space for communication, resource development and cultural expression, all based on the interests and needs of women. The intranet is also intended to generate wider communication and community-building activities. Shortly after the intranet was built (using the local ISP to distribute the signal) it became a virtual library for local children, which was accessed when they were unable to attend school because of COVID-19. The virtual library eventually led to the construction of a physical village library with a wider range of physical books and resources, with donations from a local NGO and the community’s donation of local materials and labour. Meanwhile, the intranet activities continued to grow. Over a dozen local workshops and events were held involving local women, and often young people, to further develop the intranet and its content. Many of these meetings were facilitated by trained technical mentors from across Latin America.

The experience of Cherán K’eri and the impact of its use of the intranet demonstrates that the intranet facilitates the development of specific, local content and creates a safe space for women to create such content, addressing a range of community needs. Before the intranet, the issue of women’s participation in digital spacers was seldom discussed. An added benefit of this experience is that two members of the Hackers Comunitarias collective brought Cherán K’eri’s experience to Wiki Katat, integrating that experience into the community communication plans that are being developed as part of the community networks.

4. Dynamics of change and future strategies

As the community-network process has matured in both Oaxaca and Puebla, key civil society actors, in consultation with communities and their respective organizations, have advanced a revised strategy for promoting community networks in Mexico. The strategic inputs specifically reference the recent technical and service developments as well as the aspect of community usage.

Technical and service developments

In Oaxaca, the 2G services will continue to be supported. With the anticipated granting of the 4G spectrum licence, however, communities that choose to add the 4G service will receive it. The additional CAPEX costs will be minimal, though operating costs may rise, especially for access to higher volumes of data. Nevertheless, offering both levels of service is expected to be a financially sustainable option. It is likely that communities in Oaxaca near the ones that have community networks will seek to join the cellular services when the 4G option becomes available. This is expected to initiate a process of accelerated growth of community networks.

In the meantime, the TIC model is expected to become more decentralized with regard to the provision of support, and more organically linked to the Indigenous Community members who provide technical support. Specifically, technical assistance is likely to be provided from within the local area, rather than from the capital of Oaxaca, with a trained technician paid by TIC covering several community networks in the same area.

When TIC extended its activities to the Northeastern Sierra of Puebla it was at first with a view to developing 4G services there, beginning with a pilot programme. This is a new model for enabling the expansion of community networks. Through its partnership with the UCTT and with the Tosepan group with its network of community-level cooperatives throughout significant portion of the state, TIC and its partners (REDES and Rhizomatica) hope that growth can be more substantial and organic, enabled by the capacities and dynamics of the UCTT and its members, and building on their experience in communication activities (including the use of radio). While the depth of the UCTT presence and reach should not be exaggerated (in some communities it is relatively weak), the UCTT has strongly embraced the concept of community networks and has integrated it within its structure, specifically within its communication entity, Tosepan Limakxtum, as the new entity Wiki Katat.

TIC is continuing to pursue the development of 4G – assuming the licence is granted – and the deployment of low-cost Ericsson equipment as the optimal low-cost solution in all areas. In the long term, this is seen as offering, for the first time ever, a fully open source, low-cost 4G network that can potentially be replicated by community networks throughout the world. However, it will take time, especially to finalize the software, and seek further investment.

On the other hand, by becoming an MVNO with the Altán 4G retail network, Wiki Katat is already able to offer a 4G service as a retail provider. Services have begun in the main town, Cuetzalan. In principle, the reach is envisioned to be approximately 50 communities within UCTT’s area of operation. Communities have expressed interest in the service and have agreed to the terms of a rollout in which the local member cooperatives offer the service.

This a complex, high-level telecommunications strategy, pursuing several complementary strands at once, and it has the advantage of some redundancy. If for example, there are delays in 4G, the Altán MVNO approach can help to maintain the momentum. If Altán fails or the terms of access change significantly, the low-cost community-owned 4G approach will still continue. Unlike the Altán service, the community-owned 4G approach also offers an unmetered traffic-fee model that encourages multimedia use for training and other productive activities. Some of the tariffs for basic features such as local content are negotiated between the community and Altán.

While there is some impetus behind this strategy, it requires resource inputs from various sources, including donors, to maintain and build the current momentum. The strategy also requires a communications plan to influence and advocate in favour of community networks at the national level.

Community usage

With the Altán 4G internet service in operation in Cuetzalan and the intranet pilot in San Antonio Rayon underway, Wiki Katat and certain interested communities are turning their attention to developing local community communication plans and building an intranet with relevant content and applications. Appropriating mobile phone and internet technologies in accordance with the spirit and practices of these autonomous Indigenous Communities is a key objective, but it is also recognized as a key challenge.

All community networks have created a fund to support this local usage; yet developing relevant content that will be used and reused by the community and that can contribute to achieving their cultural and economic goals, is not a simple task. The fact that the Altán does not grant network ownership per se to the local community further encourages the communities to ensure that the network’s use and content is driven by their principles, needs and beliefs. Wiki Katat staff are building their capacities to support the design of communication plans that incorporate different media, such as radio, video and internet. The content development projects underway will contribute to this, including those in Reyeshogpan and those of the Hackers Collective.

Conclusion

The extent to which civil society has engaged in Mexico’s community-network ecosystem and to which state mechanisms and institutions are enabling and encouraging community networks to emerge and become sustainable should not be understated. The evidence indicates that the regulator, IFT, is positively predisposed towards listening to and addressing the telecommunications needs of grassroots communities in the area of service and spectrum licences (albeit with bureaucratic delays that are certainly not unique to Mexico). This is the result of many years of collective lobbying, building communal and mutual trust, and holding workshops and developing resources and awareness specifically directed towards this goal.

However, the broader policy environment is less than positive, and various entities, such as the government agencies in charge of tax collection, have yet to understand the concept of community networks and how they can potentially contribute to benefitting the public interest. The recent Supreme Court decision, establishing the right of Indigenous Communities to whatever regulations and policies are required for them to achieve their communication goals, is a major step forward, but it is not enough to change the outlook of these governmental agencies.

The absence of a universal service fund in Mexico also precludes a possible source of sustainable investment in community networks and is also an indication that the government does not yet recognize that conventional market mechanisms are insufficient by themselves to reach everyone.

Still, significant progress has been achieved. Community-owned networks are seen amongst civil society to be sustainable and to provide a range of affordable and useful services, including the conventional set of voice and data services, which are valued by individuals and communities everywhere. Increasingly, the communities are embracing, using and appropriating these technologies to address their specific needs related to autonomy, cultural and social enrichment, and economic sustainability. Capacity building and close accompaniment are key elements of this process if communities are to continue to leverage these technologies for their own wellbeing.

There is still some way to go before the dynamics of community networks become embedded across all government structures and public resources, and before the necessary resources are allocated to the sector to enable it to grow, but impetus is growing and the civil society organizations and their allies involved in the movement continue to make substantial contributions towards its progress.

[1] Article 2 of the Constitution recognizes the right of Indigenous Communities to develop their own system of organization and customary laws, known as “uses and customs”. Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization also provides the Indigenous Communities with special status as does the American Declaration of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, specifically their right to have their own means of communication.

[2] The states are: Chiapas, Guerro, Oaxaca, Puebla and Veracruz.

[3] With 2-MHz uplink and 2-MHz downlink in the 850-MHz band reserved for it. This amount is less than 25 percent of that assigned to a conventional mobile network operator and is insufficient for small networks to cover their full voice demand, or to migrate to 3G or 4G.

[4] In 2022, in an interview for this research, the IFT noted that 45 000 communities, or about 5 million people, in Mexico still do not have mobile services. Of these communities, 42 000 are communities with populations under 100.

[5] This position is now widely accepted, even if somewhat informally, for instance by the GSMA, as expressed in an interview with Genaro Cruz, Senior Market Engagement and Advocacy Manager of GSMA (13 January 2022).

[6] This was a revision to Recommendation 19, originally adopted by ITU-D in March 2010. For further details, see https://www.itu.int/rec/D-REC-D.19/en

[7] For further information see: https://www.citel.oas.org/en/Pages/PCCI/Final-Reports.aspx

[8] See: https://www.apc.org/en/news/landmark-ruling-mexico-allows-communities-provide-service-areas-telecoms-market-does-not-reach (English translation by DeepL.com.)

[9] The figures are derived from the number of monthly subscriptions bought over a 12-month period, not from the number of individual users of SIM cards. For instance, users bought 51 822 monthly subscriptions in 2021 which, divided by 12, gives an average of 4 319 ongoing users. There are significant variations in the growth or decline of users between the 17 community networks.

[10] For instance, a hurricane in August 2021 in Puebla’s northeastern Sierra region caused significant damage to the community-network equipment there.

[11] Different communities do this differently, depending on their tradition of community management. In some communities, the network administrator, who registers new subscribers, manages subscriptions, etc., is a community volunteer, while in others the administrator is paid.

[12] For more information about the initiative, see: https://www.apc.org/en/node/35376/

[13] These short case studies which share the results of a limited number of interviews with support organization and some users do not attempt to constitute an impact assessment of community networks. However, the literature is extensive here. In particular, see Bidwell and Jensen 2019 (https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/bottom-connectivity-strategies-community-led-small-scale-telecommunication-infrastructure) and Global Information Society Watch 2018: Community Networks https://giswatch.org/community-networks.

[14] An important component of their reflection is the indigenous philosophy of buen vivir (yeknemilis in the languages of both the Tutunaku and Maseual peoples): the pursuit of a full life in harmony and balance with nature, and with a sense of community and reciprocity.

[15] The following video, produced by TIC, presents the overall 4G pilot: https://www.tic-ac.org/videos/ (See the first video.)

[16] Titataniske means “united we will win” in the Nahuatl language.

[17] LTE, or long-term evolution, networks are somewhere on the path from 3G to 4G.

[18] Wiki Katat also offer a “MiFi” service, an internet dongle, mainly for small businesses. It is considerably cheaper than the Telcel offering, although its primary advantage is the higher quality and reliability of the service.

[19] Xocoyolo is somewhat unique. While it is in the region of Cuetzalan, it is a non-Indigenous community as many of the residents are descendants of French soldiers who occupied the area for a period during the nineteenth century. The population of the village and surrounding areas is about 1 600.

1. © FAO/Ismail Taxta/Arete

2. © FAO

3. © FAO/A.Proto

4. © Digital Green

5. © FAO/A.Proto

6. © CGIAR Climate

7. © Digital Green

8. © FAO/S.Cespoli

9. © CGIAR/C. de Bode

10. © Digital Green

11. © Farm Radio International

12. © FAO/Daniil Dolidze

13. © GSMA Mobile for Development

14. © FAO/Jorge Rodríguez

Spine photos

© Digital Green (up); © Unsplash/Dave Weatherall (down)

1. © 123RF/Thekaikoro

2. © FAO/D.Sy

3. © Sherzod Suyarkulov

4. © FAO/CSDI Bolivia

5. © AFA

6. © Digital Green

7. © Digital Green/Diana Mrazikova

8. © AMARC Sangham Radio

9. © FAO/Ismail Taxta/Arete

10. © FAO

11. © Tutura FM, Indonesia