Food Security – Integra LLC

ICTs for “M&E” Component of the Ag. Value Chain

Photo Credit: Daniel Katz

Access to timely and accurate data on farmers, their households and farm activities is key for policy, decision-making and quality control for development organizations, national governments, funding agencies, project implementers, field workers, researchers and farmers themselves. Demographic data (past and present) on farm households such as land sizes, assets owned, types of soil, weather conditions, gender distribution, literacy levels, types of commodities being produced, diseases and pest, facilities for storage, among others are critical.

Unfortunately, the current status of data on developing nations’ agriculture at both local and global levels is far from reaching the stage at which policy makers can confidently draw upon for intervention due to the complexities with collection and analysis. The result is inefficient flow of resources into these communities due to under or over investments. The challenge is both socio-technical – human skills to design the necessary protocols for capturing these data as well as technological tools to facilitate the management (capturing, analyzing, sharing, etc.) of the data.

For far too long, exploring the role of ICT solutions to support value chain actors in this area have been ignored even though viable and potent ICT tools are in the market. ICT solutions identified in this component could be used in building and generating electronic forms for data gathering, help in timely access to data, facilitate easy and accurate data analysis, ensure monitoring of field activities, help in tracing of goods from farm gate to consumers, and assist in certifying commodities for quality assurance.

Photo Credit: Uganda App Lab

Potential ICT Solutions to Facilitate Agricultural Policy & Decision-Making

These are ICT solutions that facilitate accurate data capturing, analysis and sharing on farmers, their farm sizes, assets, commodities and other key identifications for enhancing policy decisions making by field staffs, governments, investors, donors and feedback into research and development. Examples of apps identified in this category includes iFormBuilder, a mobile platform for building robust forms, offline data capturing and managing data and users from any browser with the iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad with image and audio recording, GPS and mapping functionality, etc; Mobenzi Researcher that uses simple feature phones to high-end handsets to provide a tried and tested solution to enhance field research and data collection; and PoiMapper, a mobile point of interest data collection and sharing solution for affordable GPS-enabled feature phones that can make agricultural fieldwork more efficient and reliable through planning and monitoring of field activities.

Potential ICT Solutions for Traceability and Quality Assurance

These are ICT solutions to facilitate data gathering on farmers, their fields and specific information on their commodities for traceability and quality assurance. Examples include SourceTrace, a suite of ICT applications including traceability module that records delivery and transaction of data both entered manually into mobile device as well as from GPS, RFID and bar code readers, certification module for internal agricultural monitoring processes of agricultural commodity firms such as Fair Trade, and processing module that automates the capture of valuable information on the various light industrial processes of any agricultural commodity; Reliable Information Tracking System (RITS), a new coffee traceability program that is helping coffee growers become more efficient, reliable, and quality-focused by tracking deliveries of coffee from each member down to the details of what coffee varietals and quality score each lot of coffee receives; and, Integrating ICT for Quality Assurance and Marketing, a project that helps to build an internal control system for inspectors of Organic Producers and Processors Association of Zambia (OPPAZ) for quality assurance and thereby improve the value of the products for increased income.

In summary, ICTs have great potential for data management within the agricultural value chain for increased agricultural growth. Improved data used will influence how research is conducted and subsequently the kind of policy decisions that need to be made for funding and investment. For detailed information on ICT solutions for monitoring, evaluation and quality assurance visit ICT4Ag Database by GBI for an interactive experience and feedback.

March 9, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Food Security, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

ICTs for “Productivity” Component of the Ag. Value Chain

Photo Credit: The African

Smallholder farmers face agricultural productivity challenges in the areas of under-investment in R&D; the actual processes of agricultural research and communication; access and utilization of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, agrochemicals, etc. by farmers; and accurate information on field production practices. On the other hand, success stories of the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to minimize each of these challenges are being documented across the globe and the potential for increasing the impact of ICTs on agricultural production is huge.

As the first in the 3-piece series on “Mapping ICT Solutions along the Agricultural Value Chain”, this post explains how ICT solutions are being used or can be used by value chain actors within the productivity segment of the value chain. ICT solutions in this category may support value chain actors who are involved in agricultural research and development, input manufacture and supply, extension, and production for increased access to information and knowledge for agricultural production.

Potential ICT Solutions for Agricultural Research and Development (R&D)

Agricultural R&D is a key component of the value chain and in most developing nations, has great limitation due to poor access to the global knowledge pool by the developing nations researchers. ICT solutions in this sub-category may support the work of agricultural researchers, agricultural science students, extension staffs, and farmers to facilitate access to scientific knowledge, exchange of information between and among them.

Examples of ICT solutions identified include mobile applications such as the i) OakMapper, a mobile application which allows users to submit occurrences of Sudden Oak Death (SOD), search for incidents, and to report them to the geospatial enabled database; ii) Rural Universe Network (RUNetwork), a network of several partners in the Caribbean to help improve the availability of local knowledge and information through the development of a rural communication system; iii) eRails, a free website for partners across Africa working in the area of agriculture and rural development to help them share their new innovations; iv) AGORA and TEEAL by FAO and Cornell University respectively helping to increase access of developing nations researchers and academics to scientific journals to facilitate their research work.

Photo Credit: Thulasy Balasubramaniam and Graham Lettner

Potential ICT Solutions for Access to Agricultural Inputs

Increased access to inputs such as seed, animal feed, fertilizer, machinery, financial support, insurance, and irrigation systems at the right time, the right price, and in the right amounts is key for successful production by farmers. Actors within this segment are mostly private sector and for-profit firms that need to be in constant communication with the smallholder farmers to ensure profitable investment. Communication tools are important for continuous flow of information between these partners to be able to develop the right input that works for the farmers. At the same time, input manufacturers and suppliers are expected to collaborate with researchers who test these inputs for their suitability for farmers to help in commercialization and scaling up promising agricultural technologies that could benefit smallholder farmers.

ICT solutions within this category may support activities of input manufacturers, suppliers, and users for timely, more efficient and effective use of these agricultural inputs. Some of the ICT applications identified include the use of i) E-Voucher system in Zambia to facilitate easy access to inputs by farmers, help involve the private sector, and reduce fraud in the delivery of these inputs; ii) the Agrian Mobile Information Center, a mobile app that allows users to access product information while in the field, search by product name, active ingredients, signal word, etc. and iii) Kilimo Salama, an input insurance system in Kenya for farmers as they purchase inputs for their farms.

Potential ICT Solutions for Agricultural Production

Apart from inputs and other new technologies from research, farmers put in a lot of resources and efforts into the actual production process on the field. Smallholder farmers across the globe are known for their innovative activities in the face of limited access to scientific knowledge and resources for production. Information communication technologies can play significant role in either way – connecting them to scientific resources and information and also link these farmers together to share their indigenous knowledge and experiences acquired over the years. ICT solutions in this sub-category may help in communicating information to support field activities by farmers such as weather, pest and diseases, soil nutrient levels, harvesting practices, gestation cycles, and knowledge sharing among farming communities.

Photo Credit: FAO

Some of the tools identified within this group include i) Crop Calendar, an online resource created by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which provides timely information about seeds to promote local crop production by farmers; ii) iCow, a voice-based mobile application that prompts cattle farmers on vital days of cows gestation period; iii) NEXT2, a geo-social application that is able to connect farmers with similar interest that are geographically co-located through SMS, voice, or mobile web to share local knowledge, expertise and experiences; and iv) a host of traditional radio programs that are assisting farmers’ production activities.

In concluding this piece, it is clear that the huge potential of the new digital network for agricultural productivity is yet to be fully exploited for smallholder farmers. The technologies are affecting the work of agricultural researchers, extension workers, input manufacturers and distributors, private sector organizations interested in partnering with governments to improve agriculture, and some farmers at the remotest communities. But stakeholders need to devise better strategies for fully integrating these solutions into their projects.

This is the first in a 3-part series that explains the role of ICTs within the three major stages of the agricultural value chain – Productivity, Marketing, & Monitoring and Evaluation. We’ll soon be launching a dynamic and interactive version of “Apps4Ag Database” project on March 9^th during GBI’s TechTalk:Mapping ICTs Along the Ag Value Chain.

March 6, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Food Security, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Mapping ICT Solutions along the Ag. Value Chain

The agriculture and food security value chain system is known for its complexity with varied actors at various levels interacting among themselves and with their external environment to provide sustainable food security situation across the world. In this complex system, the key for success depends on how well the value chain actors collaborate and coordinate their activities throughout the entire process from research and development through production to consumption.

The agricultural value chain identifies a set of actors and their respective activities that are aimed at bringing basic agricultural product from research and development, through production in the field, marketing and value adding processing to the final consumer. Within the agricultural value chain, irrespective of the model of the chain, three key components can be identified. These are activities associated with – i) productivity (Research and Development (R&D), input manufacture and supply, production on the field); ii) marketing (transport and storage, processing, retail and wholesale); and iii) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (policy and traceability). Marking out these components allows for identification of the actors that work within these three main categories along the value chain.

Communication tools for coordination of roles

In a complex system like the agricultural value chain, coordination of roles is key as the actors collaborate to exchange resources. Successful coordination of role calls for appropriate communication approaches and media for smooth flow of resources from one stage to another and from one actor to the other. The importance of communication within the value chain is becoming clear especially with the surge to develop new and innovative information and communication technologies (ICTs) for agriculture and food security.

The U.S. Agency for International Development’s new Global Broadband and Innovations (GBI) program with the mandate to focus the Agency’s attention and resources on leveraging the adoption of ICTs across its development portfolio has been exploring the role of the new technologies along the agricultural value chain for improved resource flow. Throughout our desk research, we have found that there are several discussions, and activities going on with the use of ICTs in agriculture and food security, and others specifically on value chain development. However, little is done to bring the two issues together.

The ICTs for Agriculture team at GBI has over the past few months been working to bring these two issues together to help identify what ICT solutions currently in the market are best fit for each stage of the agricultural value chain. The team has identified and selected over 125 ICT solutions (apps and projects) that apply to the various actors within the agricultural value chain, specifically for this initial stage of the project and has mapped out these tools along the chain.

This is an introduction to a 3-piece series that explains the role of ICTs within the three major stages of the agricultural value chain – Productivity, Marketing, & Monitoring and Evaluation. We’ll soon be launching a dynamic and interactive version of “Apps4Ag Database” project on March 9^th during GBI’s TechTalk:Mapping ICTs Along the Ag Value Chain.

March 5, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

The Myth of E-Voucher Schemes for Enhanced Fertilizer Use

Photo Credit: Ben Addom

The future use of the information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as e-vouchers in delivering subsidized fertilizer (or other inputs) to farmers in the current information age is blurred due to the very high cost involved in setting up such systems and the anticipated power/energy problems. This was one of the revelations made by experts from the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) and the World Bank during the January 2012 USAID’s Agriculture Sector Council Seminar held in Washington DC.

Ian Gregory, a consultant from IFDC spoke on the subject “Voucher Schemes for Enhanced Fertilizer Use: Lessons Learned and Policy Implications” and David Rohrbach, a Senior Agricultural Economist at the World Bank shared his experiences from eastern and southern Africa remotely from Tanzania on the subject “Opportunities and Risks of Fertilizer Voucher Programs.”

The speakers argued that based on their earlier experiences, using ICT-based systems to facilitate fertilizer delivery through the subsidy programs can be very expensive. This includes the initial cost of establishing such a system as well as maintenance cost due to the absence of ICT infrastructure and low ICT human resource level in their respective areas of operation. Also anticipated is the lack of power or energy (electricity) in the communities that these inputs are distributed.

This revelation came in at the time when the World Bank had just launched an eSourcebook on ICTs in Agriculture with a comprehensive list of innovative practice summaries that demonstrate success and failure in interventions. Among them is the use of an electronic voucher system in Zambia, an initiative that was reported in 2010. The system is currently being piloted by the United Nations World Food Program (WFP), CARE International, and the local Conservation Farming Unit (CFU) with support from Mobile Transactions (a company specializing in low-cost payment and financial transaction services). The e-voucher system empowers smallholders to obtain subsidized inputs from private firms (giving the firms, in turn, an incentive to expand and improve their business).

Fertilizer subsidy programs

Giving the background to the fertilizer voucher schemes, Ian stated that while the traditional fertilizer subsidies were an integral policy tool of the Green Revolution in the 1960’s, excessive fiscal costs and risks, late delivery, rent-seeking, political economy and patronage, rationing, lack of equity and efficiency, and displacement of the private sector led to the demise of these subsidies in the 1980s. But the fertilizer subsidy programs have resurfaced in the last ten years as a results of high international fertilizer prices.

David from the World Bank Tanzania also identified some of the risks associated with the program as vouchers (or fertilizer) being distributed late; vouchers redeemed by agents distributing the fertilizer; counterfeiting vouchers (or fertilizer); vouchers redeemed for cash; price inflation: greater demand than fertilizer supply (top-up or subsidy grows); number of target recipients grows faster than population; and over-reporting of production.

Is there a need for e-vouchers?

On the future direction of the fertilizer subsidy programs, David Rohrbach mentioned smart vouchers and ICT based systems as one of the possible reforms. Also possible is the effort to improve fertilizer use efficiency; find alternative strategies for strengthening competitive input markets; test alternative exit strategies; and explore the option of third party monitoring for improved management. These are areas that information and communication technologies could be strategically deployed for an efficient system.

Photo Credit: Mobile Transactions

According to the eSourcebook, the mobile transaction system in Zambia is enabling electronic monitoring of the e-voucher system, documenting which vouchers have been redeemed, where, and for which products, thereby improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the input subsidies. Also because farmers are registered with the system, they can be identified more effectively for specific training programs with input- and productivity-enhancing components. The e-voucher system also supports private agribusinesses by making them the direct source for inputs; as more private input dealers choose to participate, competition may increase.

With the success of the Zambia’s e-voucher pilot case, and the immense benefits that both farmers and the private sector providers can gain from such a system, I wonder why cost should still be an obstacle to its implementation in other countries. It may be true that an e-voucher system may not be easily accessible to these rural poor communities at this time, but the steadily decreasing costs of ICTs and the Internet infrastructure all point to a promising future. I believe this is a great opportunity for the private sector and the young entrepreneurs in these parts of the world to explore.

Cases of fertilizer subsidy programs

The two experts also compared fertilizer subsidy programs like the Sustaining Productive Livelihoods through Inputs for Assets (SPLIFA) of Malawi, Agricultural Inputs Support Program (AISP) also in Malawi, Ghana Fertilizer Support Program (FSP), Zimbabwe Agricultural Input Project (ZAIP), and National Agricultural Input Voucher Scheme (NAIVS) of Tanzania.

Photo Credit: Inform Africa

Some of the lessons learned include the fact that fertilizer subsidy programs do work for poverty reduction if targeted to vulnerable, potentially viable farmers and maintained for 3-5 years; they will also improve food security but at a huge cost and with leakage, crowding out, and mainly crop-specific; based on mixed evidence from 1980s, not sustainable; and they may work as a short-term fix for price spikes but distort markets, and at-source subsidy is a lower cost alternative.

Agrilinks is a new space for agriculture specialists and practitioners to access current information and resources on important agricultural and food security related topics and issues. The space leverages an array of experiences, resources, and expertise to encourage and promote knowledge flow among practitioners, USAID, partners, and other organizations specializing and working on current agricultural development issues. Visit Agrilinks for more information on this and future events.

January 31, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Mistakes and Pitfalls of MNOs/NGOs

Photo Credit: HD Guru

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question six from the forum. This post is the final in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

Question 6: What are some of the common mistakes or pitfalls mobile operators or NGOs run into when developing these services?

Below is a quick summary of the contributions from the forum.

Building “FOR” Users: The first post to the question raised an interesting point by arguing that when the MNOs and NGOs have the goal to develop the service “for” the user without understanding the needs of the users and involving them, usually leads to a failure. Citing Richard Heeks, the post explained that in order to avoid these pitfalls, MNOs/NGOs first need to i) identify the development objective of the project/service; ii) identify the new and/or re-engineered information requirements needed to meet those objectives; and iii) identify the role that ICTs and other information-handling technologies have to play in meeting those information requirements.

A related post from a software developer agreed with the point and argued that ICT software or application development should be a user-centric approach, whereby developers collaborate and work closely with users or some categories of stakeholders.

Putting All Bets on Mobile Phones: A second mistake pointed out was, when NGOs and other development/commercial projects put all their bets on mobile phones. Like any other technology, mobile phones are “effect multiplier” and it only works when there is an underlying robust system (either an agro-advisory or private extension) which in effects get multiplied. If there is no underlying system or process and mobile phones are just introduced, as a magic bullet, it seldom works.

Lack of Understanding the Complexities with Content: Most often MNOs especially underestimate the complexities associated with sourcing and aggregating content, and designing the content management system that can meet farmer’s localized content needs but at the same time scalable.

Failure to Design Services for Scale: Another pitfall that is linked to scale is ensuring that services are designed from the start to enable scale – such as using efficient technologies, working with partners who have existing assets such as marketing and distributing capabilities so you can reach a large number of farmers cost-effectively.

Ignoring the Trust Factor: Utility VAS needs high degree of “trust factor” in the user’s mind in order to make the user stick-on to the service even if it does not bring in any instant benefit to them. A case in point is IKSL service in India, which is backed up with the goodwill of IFFCO, the largest and most preferred fertilizer supplier in India.

MNOs Using Traditional Marketing Channels for Farmers: The marketing channels of mobile agricultural services need to be different from a conventional entertainment VAS. Conventional promotions like push SMS or Out Bound Diallers (OBD) not necessarily convince a farmer to subscribe to a mobile agro-advisory. Alternative channels, like affiliation to farmers groups, bundling with agri-inputs, customization to contract farming etc. are some of the innovative approaches which have been tried in India.

Focusing only on Information Service: MNOs and NGOs also need to design their services keeping in mind that information alone does not solve all problems of farmers. An information-service which links various service delivery agents like, agri-input marketers, warehouses, laboratories etc. will have better attractiveness for farmers in comparison to simple information push.

Problem of Distinguishing between Demand Analysis and Needs Assessment: One problem that NGOs have that MNOs usually don’t have is distinguishing between a demand analysis and needs assessment. NGOs often conduct needs assessment which documents what farmers say they need but it does not have the discipline needed in a business analysis. If NGOs are to provide such services, they need to prioritize features that they will provide and sort out which are valuable enough for someone to pay for.

Sources of Funding for NGOs: NGOs are often funded by donors on a project basis. This can easily drive them to a project orientation, especially when donors call for “success stories” and do not have the incentive nor the process to follow up after a project to see if a service they have supported is continuing and scaling.

NGOs for Development versus MNOs for Business

There was a concern about why the question under discussion had grouped MNOs and NGOs together since their perspectives and the pitfalls they face may be quite different. Interestingly, there was a contribution that separated these two areas and then grouped NGOs together with the development sector and MNOs together with business/private sector. While some of the responses also grouped the mistakes and pitfalls accordingly, others combined them.

NGOs Taking One-Sided Stand: A contributor sharing his experience pointed out that mostly people in development sector (NGOs) take a one-sided stand, when it comes to developing services for people. While it is very important to design services that would deliver certain benefits to the community from pure development point of view, it is also very important to see how the same benefits will continue to reach the community even after the development intervention has stopped. This call for a business case for development work and many NGO-s and development agencies do not consider this as a key factor while designing mobile services.

MNOs Taking One-Sided Stand: Mobile Network Operators also make mistake by considering agro-advisory services to operate on the same principles of other value added services (mVAS) like entertainment or news. While the target customer segments for both may be same, the decision factors for subscribing to such services are completely different.

Other common mistakes that MNOs/ NGOs make are:

Not profiling the customers
Not properly identifying the information needs of customers
Wrong customer acquisition – customer not having interest in the service
Extending services where network is not strong
Content not having relevance to the local conditions
Not being fully aware of the telecom regulation policies of their geographic area.

NB: This is the final in series of six post on the subject “Reflections on Mobile Agricultural Services”. The earlier posts can be located through the links below:

1: Reflections on mAg Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs

2: Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale

3: Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers?

4: Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability

5: Reflections on mAg Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination

January 5, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Farmer to Farmer, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination

Photo Credit: IITA

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question five from the forum. This post is the fifth in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

With my interest in this area, I began the discussion with a post which pointed out the need to source content from farmers themselves – that is farmers’ local knowledge and innovations (FLK/I). A number of subsequent posts agreed with the fact that local knowledge is critical, and any effort to spread this knowledge and prevent its dearth by recording it through technology is also essential.

Question 5: What are the methods for sourcing appropriate content to be delivered to farmers, what standards should be followed when disseminating information to farmers, and who is best placed to manage quality assurance?

Most often when it comes to services for farmers, we immediately jump into ways of providing technical/scientific content. So I may say my post did change the tone of discussion of the question, at least at the beginning. Below are some of the ways that FLK/I could be sourced from farmers as primary content and then improved through other scientific methods for use by these farmers.

Sourcing Methods of Farmers Local Knowledge and Innovations (FLKI)

Use of face-to-face meeting with farmers to help identify FLK/I and then “validate” it together with them
Use of mobile vans with the necessary recording equipments to source content from farmers
Use of radio in combination with mobile phones to source FLK/I from farmers. Specifically, radio “Phone-In” program in most parts of Africa could be an excellent method
Farmers could be trained with basic documenting tools so that while they are engaged in their local farming activities, they can also be recording these activities for researchers to use later in their research to improve these innovations.

Other examples of the use of ICTs to facilitate peer-to-peer knowledge sharing among farmers and possibly for sourcing content for farmers were also pointed out by other discussants as Awaaz.De, Digital Green, and Video Viewing Club (VVC).

Another promising application that was mentioned later during the discussion is NEXT2 – a geosocial network app that automatically connects subscribers around location and by common topics of interest or concern. I believe the potential of this app is great for those interested in utilizing farmers local knowledge and innovations. While the app may primarily help strengthen the existing social capital among farmers through knowledge sharing, it could also be used to strengthen the link between farmers and their officers with close geographic proximity.

Customized/Localized Content for Farmers

A related point made by another contributor emphasized localized content instead of global scientific knowledge, which may not be appropriate for all contexts. The post asked for a process to build a database of customized content that is relevant to a group of farmers instead of defining apriori what is needed. The contributor called for a system where farmers can both receive support when they need it, and provide supports to others when it is in their area of expertise. Also with the use of technology such as efficient search interface, ‘farmers’ will be able to take advantage of previously answered questions when it becomes necessary.

In fact this point agrees with one of the components of the mFarmer Initiative that aims at providing bespoke, digital agriculture content via an online database. Making this database a dynamic resource with up-to-date content will be very useful for agricultural development.

Conventional Approaches to Content Sourcing

While others agreed that knowledge from farmers is important to remember, they believe that the bulk of content farmers need to improve their farming techniques is from known sources such as public and private extension services, R&D units (both private and public), and universities. The problem with the content from these sources is that they are in diverse formats that needed to be managed for farmers to be able to use. Below is a summary of traditional methods of sourcing content for farmers:

Printed literature and website information that are authentic and are available in public domain
For information not available in the public domain, special tie-up with appropriate organizations to enable content enrichment and broadening of the knowledge base
Feedback and success stories from the customers

Feedback on Content Versus User-Generated Content

Another important contribution from the experts pointed out the difference between feedback from farmers and content being generated by farmers. Feedback is useful to increase the relevance of the service, content itself, content sourcing methods and understanding of the on-the-ground needs by the research units. On the user-generated content, it may be appropriate for a service provider to take this approach, but it should be noted that the quality of the advice given by one user to another, inevitably affects the perceived quality of the service itself.

Who is Best Placed for Quality Assurance?

Intermediaries? The first concern of how quality assurance should be structured for user-generated model so that it increases the value and doesn’t become a bottle-neck for the scaling up was raised. Even though there was no direct response to this concern, the structured architecture of M-Kilimo and IKSL platforms where their systems have frontline staff, supported by subject matter experts/specialist and again independent evaluators were cited as good examples for content validation.

But at the same time, a concern was raised with the competency of these intermediaries such as knowledge workers, call center operators, and helpline that are critical part of the value chain. Most often, they have access to a vast repository of content and in majority of cases, take the final decision on what content to push to the farmer. Experts are usually one step removed from this process.

This has been my argument after my 2009 study in Ghana where I stated that the mere emergence of intermediaries cannot solve the knowledge barrier challenges that we currently have. We need strategies that ensure that their activities are coordinated (See my four component-strategy to do this).

Research Institutes? It was also pointed out that sourcing, aggregating, managing and assuring quality content for mobile agricultural services is complex. The role of national agricultural research institutes and universities is vital in this process to validate and adapt the content to the local context of the users.

International Organizations? The case of TECA’s partnership with organizations such as the Grameen foundation to use TECA’s information for their farmer helplines and community workers was also shared. It noted that a lot of highly relevant knowledge about successful agricultural practices and technologies for small producers comes from projects but when the project ends, the lessons learnt are often not documented in a way that could be useful for extensionists, local NGOs and farmer cooperatives in the project area and beyond.

Below is quick breakdown from a discussant on quality assurance of content for farmers:

In-house content personnel for developing content plan and protocol
Experts who will be vetting the content for messages
In-house content personnel for carrying out regular internal audit
Obtaining feedback from farmers through participatory appraisal to improve the services
Periodic audits conducted by external agencies

Standards to Follow while Disseminating Information to Farmers

Protocol of information dissemination is required to be developed for each category of information.
Requirement in respect of the following should be well defined in these protocols of information dissemination such as source, adequacy, accuracy, relevance (location specific), clarity, and sensitivity to the socio-cultural aspects

In summary, as we explore mobile agricultural information services, it is expedient for us to combine these services with human actions. There may be situations where experts will need to visit farmers field to be able to do the right diagnosis to the problem. Those from the field will agree that not all problems can be solved through phone calls or SMS. Sometimes, the experts need to see the infestation, disease, etc. on the ground to be able to recommend a solution. We need the mobile services but at the same time we should be able to determine when to use it, especially when we are concern with quality of content to the users.

NB: The last in the series (6th) is “Reflections on mAg Services: Mistakes and Pitfalls of MNOs/NGOs” (Available on 01/05/2012)

The first, second, third and fourth posts are:

1. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs”

2. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale“

3. “Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers?“

4. “Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability”

January 3, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Financial Sustainability

Photo Credit: Book Blog

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question four from the forum. This post is the fourth in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

The fourth question for the forum was about financial sustainability. With a thorough discussion on partnership models in question 1, the focus of this section was therefore on financial sustainability of such partnerships. Also with the business case laid out nicely in the previous discussion, partners have no choice than to look into the future of such partnerships through sustainable approaches.

Ensuring financial sustainability requires looking at the sources of revenue for the service. In this context, I believe the main source of revenue is from the users – the rural poor agricultural farmers supplemented by other users. So thinking of a long-term sustainability will call for actions beyond the roll-out funding to ensure that services being provided meet the needs of the users to continue paying for them.

Question 4: How can a partnership model between a Mobile Network Operator (MNO) and Agricultural Partner (AP) increase the financial sustainability of the service?

As stated above, the question assumes that without a partnership (i.e. either MNO or AP alone) delivering agricultural service to rural farmers should have some financial sustainability. So a partnership between MNO and AP should increase this financial sustainability due to the unique value proposition that each brings into the partnership.

Background

A nice background to financial sustainability of services to rural people was presented by one of the experts. It brought out the fact that in most developing countries, the bottom of the pyramid offers an excellent opportunity to the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) for increasing the rural penetration and achieving a large customer base. At the same time, the targeted segment is price-sensitive, making it necessary to develop affordable products or schemes.

With specific example from India, the contributor stated that falling mobile tariff over the last decade has been a major enabler for increased rural penetration providing increased business volume to the MNOs and an enabling environment to the APs for extending the advisory services to the rural base. Another contributor recalled that, in Africa between 50% to 80% of the workforce depends on agriculture and in most cases it also represents its GDP. So considering the transaction that goes on in the agricultural industry, it will worth it for MNOs to take a look at this industry, when investing in mobile agricultural services.

Financial Sustainability through AP-MNO Partnerships

Discussants pointed out that a partnership between MNO and AP can increase the financial sustainability of mobile agricultural services to rural farmers because of the complementary value propositions that each partner brings into the partnership.

While MNOs are in the business of collecting small amounts of revenue from millions of customers and also have the business systems to support this, the APs have the value added service that the users need for generating this revenue.
The MNOs are also skilled at marketing and getting feedback from customers but again, for these services to meet the demands of the users, APs are the right partners to develop the necessary rapport with the farmers.
The MNOs have many business skills, systems and discipline that complement the know-how that APs bring to a partnership.
The MNOs also have a strong profit incentive to keep focused on what is financially sustainable.
MNO-AP partnership could allow the MNO to understand and learn from the AP how farmers conduct their business and over a period of time, they can build products that will help farmers enhance their yield and in turn increase the profitability of the partnership.

From a different perspective, another contributor classified the strategy of ensuring financial sustainability of MNO-AP partnerships into 3 main dimensions. These are:

1) Short term: In the short term, the MNO may have to pass on part of the benefit of acquiring a new customer as an investment for their future annuity that can accrue from customer loyalty. They may also have to share a part of the future revenue based on the increase in average revenue per user (ARPU), and incentivize the service through the talk time sales to the users. This arrangement provides the initial impetus for extending a high quality advisory service to the users.

2. Medium term: In the medium term, there is the possibility of monetizing the services by the MNO. There are existing models, which are subscription based in which a farmer who is getting value for money would be willing to pay for the services.

3. Long term: In the long term, it requires continuous engagement with the customers which may provide an opportunity to extend other value added services related to financial including education, livelihood, health, etc. In each of these, the subscribers can be provided services through mobile phones on subscription basis or usage basis.

Presented from the MNOs’ side, another discussant also looked at how MNOs are able to benefit indirectly as a result of MNO-AP partnership. These are:

Increase in Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) of existing user base. The ARPU of the regular rural user versus ARPU of rural users of Agri VAS on the same network, multiply the difference by the number of Agri VAS subscribers.
Increase in market share. Increase in number of rural customers attributed to Agri VAS is a source of additional ARPU every month. ARPU from new Agri VAS customers could be equal to regular rural ARPU.
Increase in loyalty and decreased churn. Churn rate in a regular sample versus churn rate in a sample of Agri VAS users. This % difference multiplied by number of Agri VAS multiplied by rural ARPU is the saved revenue of MNO due to decreased churn.
Reduction in acquisition cost. The acquisition cost per customer of a MNO multiplied by number of new network subscribers attributed to Agri VAS is the saved acquisition costs for the MNO.

It is also observed that, MNO-AP partnership could increase the credibility of the whole venture thereby enabling them to explore other sources of revenue generation such as through m-governance services (which are being actively promoted by governments) and m-commerce activities.

Multiple MNOs in a given Partnership

The issue of multiple MNOs partnering with APs came up again in relation to the financial sustainability of the partnership. The questioner was interested in the trade-offs from taking a multi-MNO approach versus an exclusive approach in countries where there are two or more MNOs sharing the market more or less equally. In other words, would the strengths of having one exclusive MNO as a partner be so diminished by a multi-MNO approach, that a multi-MNO approach would rarely be seen as a likely path to financial sustainability?

There were mix responses to this concern including the fact that MNOs, especially in countries where market share is relatively balanced, will all try to develop their own proprietary mobile agricultural platforms with similar content and business models, which will result in a race to the bottom. Some others believe that multi-MNO approach is possible but:

a) Agriculture partners need to retain ownership of the data, thereby allowing them to use it on multiple platforms but, add value to each MNO by supporting them with the development of differentiation strategies.

b) Agriculture partners can work exclusively with an MNO but, as part of that effort, work with the telecom company to establish a fair and transparent pricing model to enable out-of-network users to access the information.

Apart from these ideas, there was no specific examples of multi-MNO partnerships from the forum. But another interesting view from India was that, because there is already a substantial struggle to ‘sell’ agricultural content, the issue of exclusivity is debatable. However if the agricultural content is customized and filtered enough (customized as per local needs) placing the same in a shopping cart is relatively easy.

So how can a partnership between MNO and AP increase financial sustainability of such association? Each partner has some unique skills and abilities that they use in their business as shared above to financially sustain their activities. Bringing these unique qualities together is expected to increase the individual potentials of the partners at the same time ensuring higher quality service to the users.

NB: The Next in the series (5th) is “Reflections on mAg Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination” (Available on 01/03/2012)

The first, second and third posts are:

1. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs”

2. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale“

3. “Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers?“

December 31, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Farmer to Farmer, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs

Photo Credit: GSMA

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question one from the forum. This post is the first in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

Partnership, being one of the key criteria for selecting mFarmer Fund beneficiaries, the introductory question (below) for the forum was about partnership.

Question 1: In a partnership between a mobile network operator and agricultural partners, what unique value proposition does each partner bring, how can they leverage of each others’ strengths and what roles should each play in delivering a service to farmers?

Quick Summary of Contributions to the Question

With regard to the unique value propositions that each partner brings to the partnership, most of the contributions centered around the fact that Mobile Network Operators (MNOs):

Are providers of the mobile technology platform for the delivery of agricultural services
Have crucial role in ensuring access to the telecom network (adequate)
Have the responsibility for developing products that are affordable for farmers
Are responsible for addressing coverage issues
Need to ensure that they provide credible and dependable service
Have the responsibility of charging users and share the generated income with external Value Added Service providers
Are to be in charge of marketing and communicating the services to users (branding).

On the other hand, the Agricultural Partners (APs):

May be considered as content providers
Be able to clearly identify who the target farmers are and what their real information needs are
Must have rich experience of quality content for the farmers
Must have clear distinct experience and expertise in the areas of understanding farmers need
Shall have the ability to solve farmers’ problems and ultimately help them with inputs and services to implement the solutions
Must have the skills of connecting with farming communities
Be able to understand which format is best suited for the collection and delivery of information
Be able to collect, analyze, refine and disseminate (or make available) relevant agricultural information to the target audience
Be able to market available information services in the field, including through networks of extension workers
Shall ensure that the MNO fully understands that there is a real business behind Value Added Service (VAS) targeting farmers, even if the information service may take a longer time to take off
Be responsible for formatting of the content, reformatting, sometimes translating to be delivered and understood by the end user
Be responsible for quality assurance of the content – including sources, processes and final advice delivered
Are most likely in the best position to make sure that the mobile “channel” is used well to augment other info delivery channels.

Part B & C: How can the partners leverage of each others’ strengths and what roles should each play in delivering a service to farmers?

Contributions from the forum emphasized the importance of utilizing the existing infrastructure and assets including the mobile channels such as call center, SMS and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) infrastructure, short-code, and billing and revenue collection facilities. The partners can also utilize their respective brand strength and marketing expertise. For example MNOs have some of the strongest brands and trust with the users which can be powerful agents for marketing and driving awareness and the APs can also through their Agriculture VAS, help the brand and increase the market share of the mobile operator. Also pointed out was the possibility of MNOs to provide Agri VAS access via basic Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) menu service which could drastically decrease the barriers for the rural users to access the service and increase the usability. Potentially MNOs have the capacity to blend Agri VAS with mobile money solution and compliment advisory with agricultural financial services, such as loans and crop insurance.

Reflections on the Discussion

My take on this first question is that the understanding of the “AP” and “MNO” has not been made clear at the start of the discussion leading to all kinds of interpretations, assumptions and labeling. A first look at the question makes it simple and obvious but a critical analysis reveals how complex it is especially with the key terms – MNOs and APs.

In my first post at the forum, I did call for the definitions of these terms that seem obvious to the e-agriculture community. Fro example with the APs, are we talking of any group or organization involve in agricultural development services such as NGOs with agricultural service provision; community-based organizations involved in agriculture; farmer-based organizations; national agricultural units such as extension services, or research institutes?

A key argument that ran through the discussion and confirmed my argument was the call for a third party organization for the partnership. The issue of third party partners such as software developers, technology developers, new start-ups, research institutes, international organizations, etc. partnering with MNOs and APs to ensure the success of good mobile services for users came up. The case of IKSL was mentioned where other agencies and institutions which generate actual content – like Agricultural Universities and Research Institutes, International agencies like CABI, Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Agmarknet for market information were involved in the partnership as third parties.

So a successful partnership for the mFarmer Fund may need more than MNO/AP partnership by reaching out to other institutions and organizations that have expertise in the Initiative’s Core Service. Alternatively, the APs and MNOs may be able to subcontract some of these services, but the positions of these different expertise need to be recognized.

The four points below could summarize the components of the partnership, whether two, three or more partners are involved:

Demand Articulations – partners that have skills and expertise of understanding the users (needs and potentials), understanding the content dynamics for users, etc. (e.g. NGO, CBO)
Network Formations – partners who are able to help connect other partners together and also connect users to product developers, ensure boundary spanning and information filtering (e.g. social media firms)
Process Management – partners that have the capacity to ensure infrastructure development, management and maintenance, generation of revenue for sustainability, quality assurance, formatting, etc. (e.g. MNOs, Software companies, IT firms, Universities, etc.)
Supply Activation – partners that have the skills to train and educate users on the products and services, who understand the language of the developers, able to communicate VAS, (e.g. extension services, NGOs, research institutes, etc.)

These are quotes from some of the experts at the forum:

“The Agricultural partner might not have an immediate capacity to do this in-house, as Agricultural Partner is usually an NGO or Ag. institution and not a VAS provider it its traditional sense.”

“For this, independent agronomists/ SMEs might be recruited if for example the agricultural partner has extensive experience on the ground but not so much access to the latest deep research around each individual crop/ animal.”

In otherwise, it has been acknowledged that partnership is necessary between AP (s) and MNO (s) but other views are that, the role of the MNOs, should be seen as roles being played by Internet Service Provider (ISP). That is providing the platform or network that could enable start-ups and VAS providers to utilize their services and innovations. VAS provision should remain independent of the MNOs.

Other Important Points and Questions Raised on this First Question!

The mobile channel is great for delivering certain types of information, but not all.
The profitability and success of the partnership is key
How would a model work that included two or more MNOs as the service delivery partners?
Sources of funding for the partnership – governments or on business models for profitability?
Would an MNO go into massive infrastructure investment just because of a partnership with AP for delivering agricultural services?
Where are the farmers in the partnership?

NB: The next in series is “Reflections on Mobile Ag. Services: Barriers to Scale“ and available on 12/26/2011.

December 22, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Farmer to Farmer, Food Security, Originally posted on the GBI Portal, Sustainable Agriculture

Reflections on Mobile Agriculture Services: Blog Series

Photo Credit: e-Agriculture

The mFarmer Initiative, a partnership between GSMA, USAID and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in collaboration with e-Agriculture, initiated an online discussion late November to early December 2011.

The 2-week forum which was organized around six main questions, touched on critical issues from partnerships, barriers to scale, business cases/models, content, and mistakes committed by service providers in delivering these services.

As one of the participants in this forum, I have decided to reflect on the discussion which falls within my professional interest of using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve the living conditions of rural people in the developing nations, most of which are farmers by enhancing their access to resources.

There are six reflections in the series that are available through this portal for readers. Below is the list of titles, links, and dates of the posts:

1: Reflections on mAg Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs (Available on 12/22/2011)

2: Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale (Available on 12/26/2011)

3: Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers? (Available on 12/29/2011)

4: Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability (Available on 12/31/2011)

5: Reflections on mAg Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination (Available on 01/03/2012)

6: Reflections on mAg Services: Mistakes and Pitfalls of MNOs/NGOs (Available on 01/05/2012)

NB: These posts are summaries of the discussion and my personal reflections on some of the key points, and do not reflect the views of any of the sponsors, experts or contributors to the forum.

I hope we can continue the discussion.

December 22, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Food Security, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

The Debate over Intermediaries in Ag. Value Chain: E-TIC Project

Photo Credit: CartoonStock.com.

For decades, the role of intermediaries between farmers and other stakeholders (researchers, policy makers, donors, etc.) has been key in the exchange of agricultural information, knowledge, innovation and other resources. The traditional intermediary role has been played over the years by the various national agricultural extension services but due to the challenges with this system, there is an emergent of the private sector intermediaries. However, with the advancement of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and their potential technological intermediary role, the role of “human” intermediaries is being questioned time after time.

While one school of thought thinks “technology”, specifically ICT will eventually eliminate and replace “human” intermediaries or the middlemen within the agricultural value chain, another school of thought believes that the “human factor” in extension cannot be eliminated. As a socio-technical researcher, I find myself between these two schools of thought. Even though, I have a stand in this debate (see bkaddom’s comments here), the recent selection of E-TIC project by the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) as a success story during its 2010-2011 stocktaking gives me the courage to write this reflection.

The E-TIC project is an initiative involving various players coordinated by ICVolunteers, a nonprofit organization and being implemented in Senegal and Mali (Sahel region), with the support of the Fonds Francophone des Inforoutes and a series of other partners.

An important component of the E-TIC project, however, is the role that intermediaries are playing in this multidisciplinary network as “field connectors” by providing links between small farmers and “new technologies.” The project uses local connectors (human intermediaries) such as governmental representatives; community leaders; volunteers deployed in the localities; universities and journalists are used to gather information/data; community radio for the dissemination of information; mobile phone operators; local authorities; and NGOs, all of whom cooperate in sharing information relevant to the project.

The E-TIC project then facilitates the functions of these connectors by providing them with tools (technological intermediaries) and training components so that small farmers, herders and fishermen are better able to sell their products. Among these tools is the E-TIC website, to be translated into multiple languages – French, English, Wolof, Fulani and Bambara, as well as a number of other work and exchange tools (wiki, distribution list, etc.) for communication between project stakeholders. The Internet platform aims to provide information regarding agricultural activities, including production, marketing and promotion techniques, market prices and other useful data, both for the farmers themselves and other stakeholders, including researchers in this domain. Through the creation of this portal and a series of training courses for field connectors (youth, women, community radio journalists), the E-TIC project aims to provide knowledge relevant for efficient and effective farm management.

The architecture of the E-TIC project system shows a differentiation of intermediaries whose roles are being enabled by the new technologies and tools. Instead of seeing the intermediaries as a threat to exchange of resources – information, knowledge, innovation and even physical agricultural inputs, the project recognized as tools for strengthening the delivery of these resources.

I believe that the ‘human factor’ in the exchange of information between the smallholder farmer and other stakeholders in the agricultural sector is something that cannot be replaced. ICTs are technologies that could be used to improve social processes such as extension services. It is up to the stakeholders to identify what catalyzing role the ICTs can play in facilitating the social role of these intermediaries. The type of ICTs and the degree of use at the various stages of the value chain, may depend on a number of factors including the type of content being delivered, the size of the target audience, the educational status of the users, among others.

And I quote “ICTs have an important role to play for the populations in Senegal and Mali, but the specific applications need to be adapted to local needs and means, for example, low literacy and local languages. Given the relatively low literacy rate in most cases and a strong oral tradition with the use of local languages, the most common means of communication remains direct conversation (whether through farmers, herders, etc. meeting each other or speaking with each other by mobile phone) and community radio stations” (WSIS Success Stories 2011).

December 19, 2011/by actualize

Case Studies

Contact Details

Quick Links

About

Expertise

Impact

Join

Sign up for Updates