Choose a site:
| Advanced Search
|
Communication, Media, and Development Policy
Analysis, Ideas and Debates on Development Policy Issues from Communication and Media Perspectives
Save & Share This Page
Social Bookmarks
| Advanced Search
|
Save & Share This Page
Farmers knowledge First
If improvements are to be realised at grassroots ordinary farmers innovations should be supported and technology development should be guided by this. Otherwise all efforts will only serve to increase the gap btwn the have's and have not
The issues addressed are
The issues addressed are objective and implemetation of the ideas should be urgent
Selling technology
The cell phones are the technology that keep people in contact, but they had a undesirable impact in the South, Africa and Latin America. Gangs and bands use that technology for kidnapping,robbery and other crimes. Drugs dealers and mafia are using communication systems in the edge...People that earn less than a dollar/per day had expended 6 to 10 dollars in cellullar phone services... Is this progress? But it is very good bussiness...Rebeka Vega
you are right Rebeka
Rebeka you are hundred percent right that cell phone or the modern day technological advancements contribute a lot towards the increased crime rate but you must be aware that each and everything has merits and demerits and its not the device or invention itself, but the person who uses the device. Now the cell phone or other devices, you referred to, undoubtedly are being used for illegal activities but , the same are also being used by the law enforcing agencies.its the same like a knife, which is used for cutting fruits and vegetable but at the same time can cause death if used the other way.Owing to this, we can not stop having more inventions and advancements, rather what we need to do is to educate more and more people and create an environment, where these crimes are not committed.
thanks
Ansar
penpusher35@yahoo.com
can the green revolution solve the african's problems os food ?
I am affraid that the green revolution can solve the african problem of food because if we as farmers are not concern in their programs directly ,i am not sure that in this way the Green Revolution can be helpfull to african people.We in D.R.CONGO for example we have a lot of lands but no technical to develop our agriculture so we would propose to the green to take care of congolese farmers because i am not sure that we are consider in their programs.The presence is waitted enough in our country too.ROGER Pholo president of Association Pour Le Développement Rural Integré de Nganda-Tsundi(integrated rural development association of nganda-tsundi) P.O.BOX.3659 KINSHASA-GOMBE.Phone:00243-998218472.aderigas@yahoo.fr
Technology is not the opposite of knowledge
The Patel et al. article is based on a fundamentally flawed premise: that technology use and knowledge are opposed. Quite the contrary is true. They cite for example the case of farmers abandoning the use of other soil amendments when fertilizers are used. Yet agronomists agree that the ideal situation is to use whatever soil amendments and organic sources of nutrients you have on hand and then to complement them with fertilizer to make up for the missing nutrients. Without going into detail, Africa's soils are naturally poor and rapidly being degraded (it has been estimated that the nutrient loss every year has a cost equivalent of some USD 4 bn in Africa). So clearly abandoning other soil amendments altogether is not based on sound knowledge, or there is another reason (i.e. the organic matter may be being used for fuel or something else).
There are other factual flaws in their article, but I don't think it would bring much value to catalogue them here.
The relevant point is that we have got to move away from dogmatic black/white positions, as Mr. Cherfas said above, and look at adapted approaches to achieve optimal results on the ground making use of any and all tools that might help.
In the introduction to their 1999 guide on using appreciate inquiry in development (http://www.iisd.org/pdf/appreciativeinquiry.pdf), IISD noted that "the elements that produce sustainable livelihoods...are [emphasis mine]:
• community adaptive strategies and local KNOWLEDGE;
• enabling policies;
• appropriate SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY; and
• access to credit and investment opportunities."
Kristen Sukalac
-Prospero Communications
Not either-or
I read with interest your Development Conundrum and, when it came out, the original article). I think the real problem, which Julie Levy also alludes to, is a kind of either-or mentality. Either hi-tech, or subsistence farming. There has to be a middle way, but it is very hard indeed to advocate for such a position, when extremists have a much simpler story to tell. This is as true of development as it is of politics. What is disappointing is that when a fresh source of funding and thinking comes on stream and is effectively captured by one of the extremes. I, for one, had hoped for better things, and am disappointed in AGRA to date. It seems that they are being advised by retired generals who are still fighting the previous war.
Jeremy Cherfas
Agrobiodiversity Weblog
Giving people choices
One of the key issues raised by the Patel piece is that of participation. Giving people real choices as to what to do, because many times they know best. For a similar reason, the Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP)has called on the WFP to reconsider a recent food aid appeal for Malawi, pointing to extensive research (much of it from Malawi) showing that cash transfers are much more effective -- especially since there is plenty of food within Malawi, and there are functioning markets. Cash gives people choices -- they can buy food, they can invest in assets, buy seed and other agricultural inputs, and so on. We also mentioned the Patel piece in our recent blog post on this issue, and would welcome comments. The blog, Wahenga Reporter, is at www.wahenga.wordpress.com and our website is at www.wahenga.net.
Brett Davidson
RHVP
brett@rhvp.org
While reading what you
While reading what you included on food production and distribution, I remembered an ICT Update - http://ictupdate.cta.int/en/%28issue%29/47 - that highlighted the use of communication technology to provide agricultural information and sharpen the ability of farmers to market their crops. Perhaps the results of increased access to market information improved conditions for some farmers' families, but their communities might have suffered from the export of food raised locally, and those farmers without access to the same market information may have become further impoverished. One might ask if such interventions are looking far enough beyond stimulating the market economy. In contrast, a programme that looks at local knowledge and how to leverage it to improve nutrition in communities - a home/neighbourhood-based nutrition programme for children called Positive Deviance (PD)/Hearth - uses minimal technology and but maximises the people side of development - taking what has been learned about behaviour change, nutrition, use of local resources, and organising women as community members - to implement what is now a widespread child nutrition intervention. (More information here: http://www.comminit.com/en/node/302827 and here: http://www.comminit.com/en/node/302828) A certain amount of grounding in ethics and in development experience might make both the technological approach and the people approach compatible and useful, but recent history would suggest a cautionary note, sounded for example in this Harper's article of June 2009: Let them eat cash: Can Bill Gates turn hunger into profit? http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/06/0082533
Julie Levy
Editor
The Communication Initiative
jlevy@comminit.com