agriculture – Page 4

Tag Archive for: agriculture

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, Extension Service, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

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

Photo Credit: David Fletcher

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

Following the first two discussions on partnerships and scale, the third discussion was based on justifying a business case for investing in mobile agricultural services for rural poor farmers and the motivations for the service providers.

Question 3: Is there a business case for serving poor rural smallholders and what are the motivations for the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Agricultural Partners (APs)?

Understanding the term “Business Case” for the Discussion!

As the discussion begun, a question was asked to clarify the term “business case.” In response, the facilitators pointed out that “Business Case” for the purpose of the discussion refers to “service models that meet specific needs (that of the customer/user) and are ultimately financially viable.”

Justifying a business case for serving poor rural smallholders with mobile agricultural services that meet their needs and at the same time financially viable, may involve identifying factors that currently contribute to their information deficit or information gap. It also involves proving that investment of capital and other resources are justifiable over time such that the benefits, costs and risks balance out to create this commercially viable service for both users (farmers), and service providers (MNOs and APs).

A Business Case for Serving Poor Rural Smallholders with Mobile Agricultural Services

The first contribution to the question from one of the experts used the case of Indian smallholder farmers as a typical example in the developing world, which shows the current deplorable state of smallholder agriculture. Some of the reasons due to low agricultural productivity include dearth of physical infrastructure, deficiency in the availability of agricultural inputs and lack of, or uneven access to information. Small and marginal farmers are often unable to gain access to reliable information that could help them increase their farm yield and get better price for their crops.

In earning their livelihood, small farmers face innumerable hurdles such as small acreages with low yields and low profit margins; less access to irrigation; susceptible to problems like crop diseases; scattered geographically; difficulty in pulling resources to accessing the latest information on growing techniques and the market; lacking access to credit to buy inputs; borrowing at exorbitant interest rates; forced to buy inputs at high costs and of poor quality from the money lenders’ shops; exposed to high risk; not being aware of agricultural insurance; facing shortage and high cost of labor; lacking facilities to store their crops; disorganized market; lack of efficient procurement system for their crops; and being compelled to sell their crops to brokers.

This array of problems and challenges facing smallholder farmers in the developing world, justifies serving them with mobile agricultural services. Access to mobile agricultural services is expected to increase the farmers access to credit, information on farming techniques, procurement of inputs as well as marketing their goods directly to customers or commodity exchanges.

Business Case for Service Providers

Looking at the specific needs of the rural poor farmers (users) who are at the bottom of the pyramid in the developing world, providing affordable and financially viable mobile services could be challenging. So the issue was whether it was the duty of the private sector or the national governments to meet these needs.

An interesting argument from one of the discussants was that serving rural poor and rural smallholders often is the duty of national governments to come up with certain schemes and programs. However, governments have limited resources and priorities, and it is a challenge to address the information needs, when other basic social needs are yet to be fulfilled. Sharing experiences from Bangladesh, the contributor stated that governments today are looking at alternate models like Build, Own Operate (BOO), Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT), Private Public Partnership (PPP), and outsourcing of non sovereign functions.

The partnership eco-system is also another dimension that needs to be looked into and nurtured and this is where government and MNOs can work together to deliver value to customers in rural areas. The bottom line is that there is a compelling business case today for MNOs and governments to work together to jump start the process and explore alternative business models that are sustainable in the long run.

Motivations for MNOs to Serve Rural Poor Farmers

The general view from the discussion also shows that, making a business case for MNOs is about whether the service is serving the rural poor to increase market share and revenues in the short or longer run. The MNOs, according to the discussion also may have two distinctly different views on how serving the rural poor will increase their market share. These are:

i) Provision of mobile agricultural services as a stand-alone business that should generate revenue for the company through direct revenue from charging per customer,

ii) Provision of services intended to boost revenue in the company’s core business or through indirect revenue benefits from acquiring and/or keeping customers loyal and active on their network such as selling SIM cards, air time, ring tones or launching mobile money services, etc.

If MNO looks primarily from a financial viability alone, there would not be any business case in providing services to rural areas. But when the business case is looked from a holistic view, then the whole paradigm of business case changes. In this case the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) are motivated to take up a number of m-services via mobile networks such as financial services like mobile payment and banking, financial literacy; health services including health education clinical care, health worker training; mobile-based learning and education; market information services including farmer information services and help-lines, market pricing information and transportation.

Another view is that, scale is critical for MNOs to reach commercial viability and currently there is a business case for only a few mobile solutions serving farmers as it is not easy to reach the right income-costs balance and achieve service self-sustainability. It was noted that the private service provider will not venture into rural areas, which do not have economy of scale.

Commercial Services Versus Social Enterprise

There was also another concern about the service provision in terms of commercial services (services targeted at making profit) and services developed by social enterprises or social entrepreneurs (where the focus is improving people lives in a way that does not rely on donor funding). The questioner believed that this is often the tension between APs focusing usually on the social impact, and the MNOs, focusing on the commercial aspect.

Motivation for AP’s (Social Enterprise)

Providing mobile agricultural services from social enterprise perspective was seen as complicated because it usually includes some measure of the public good. But this approach depends on the willingness of donors to help out with up-front investments. Defining and honing these investments is critical, said by an expert. The mFarmer Initiative is focusing on doing this with its Challenge Fund as well as its learning component and technical assistance.

Another concern with the social enterprise approach is the long-term financial sustainability of the service after a potential start-up funding runs out.

In summary, the discussion brought out the proof for a business case for MNOs and APs to partner and invest in mobile agricultural services that could serve rural poor farmers and increase their access to agricultural information. Such investments will invariably improve lives in these rural communities but it was also necessary to ensure the financial viability of such services for the MNOs and APs. It was noted that the commercial viability and social impact of such a service are often closely related. Ensuring that the farmer use the service and act on the information received, is a long-term driver of repeated usage.

NB: The Next in the series (4th) is “Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability” (Available on 12/31/2011)

The first and second posts are:

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

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

December 29, 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, Farmer to Farmer, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

App for Ag. User-Generated Content Sharing?

Photo Credit: Next2.us

Next2 is a “geosocial” network that allows people to automatically connect around location and by common topics of interest or concern. By sending a text message, a Next2 subscriber can signal what they have, want or would like to learn or talk about and Next2 automatically matches and then exchanges text messages between users based on similar location and overlap of sharing “circle” without revealing a user’s mobile phone number.

I believe the Ag. Sector is interested in seeing new ICT solutions (apps) that reduce or remove some of the existing bottlenecks in the process of sharing agricultural content between and among rural farmers, extension service providers, and researchers in the developing world.

So what is unique about the Next2 app? One prospect I noticed about the Next2 solution is its professed capability of connecting people with common interest. In the context of rural agriculture, I foresee the improvement in sharing of local knowledge and innovations among farmers – a kind of horizontal/intra communication among the farmers. Next2 app may contribute to the production and sharing of user-generated agricultural content among farmers. It could also increase the density of communication network between farmers and other stakeholders.

Next2 also professes to take simple feature phones without data connection and through use of SMS puts those phones on the Internet. I wonder if this could be an alternative solution to the use of smartphones in share agricultural data between and among farmers, extension service providers and researchers. By going to a Next2 subscribers web page and clicking on a link you can send the subscriber a message, the message appears on the subscribers mobile phone as a new text message, the subscriber can reply by text message, and the Next2 software routes it back to the sender as SMS or email. Of course, access to the minimum Internet service will be required.

The aims of the Next2 solution are:

Making the lives of people at the base-of-the-pyramid (BoP) significantly better by enabling them to discover, connect, communicate and thereby mobilize local solutions to local problems,
Giving under-served and over-looked populations an Internet presence and messaging identity that creates a bridge between them and Internet users,
Empowering local channel marketing partners to introduce Next2 to the communities they serve to quickly and aggressively drive content creation, content distribution and grow significant value to end-users,
Building SMS, access phone number(s) across the African continent so subscribers can conduct cross border communication and trade to foster regional markets and economic development in agricultural and other industries,
Enabling brands, entrepreneurs, businesses, NGOs, government agencies and researchers to reach Next2 users and/or incorporate Next2′s communication platform, features and/or data in their own applications.

The use of the innovation is being considered in Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana for agricultural partners who can create a Nokia App for farmers. The solutions is similar to how FrontlineSMS works but instead of plugging a SIM card into a personal computer, SIM card is rather plugged into a in-country hosting provider that then connects the SIM card to the cloud solution of Next2 on Amazon server. Through that, Next2 is able to use a long-code to provide Next2 solution to all farmers in a given country.

Will be monitoring and looking forward to more analysis on the use of the app from the field as it is piloted.

More information here.

December 5, 2011/by actualize

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

Be Part of the Discussion on the World Bank’s “ICT in Agriculture” Sourcebook

Photo Credit: infoDev

The first in series of online forums to further develop resources for the recently launched “ICT in Agriculture” Sourcebook by the World Bank takes off on the 5th through the 16th of December at the e-Agriculture site.

These discussion forums, available to all e-Agriculture community members, will be vehicles to inform the World Bank of other projects/programs that e-Agriculture members are carrying out and that could complement the research of the World Bank.

With the profound potential of information and communication technologies in developing country agriculture, the Agriculture and Rural Development Department (ARD) of the World Bank in collaboration with infoDev (part of the World Bank Group) embarked in an effort to explore and capture the expanding knowledge and use of ICT tools in agrarian livelihoods. “ICT in Agriculture: Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks and Institutions”, an electronic Sourcebook (e-Sourcebook) is the product of this effort which was released in November 2011.

The Sourcebook offers practical examples and case studies from around the world. A compilation of modules related to 14 agricultural subsectors, each module covers the challenges, lessons learned, and enabling factors associated with using ICT to improve smallholder livelihoods. Its aim is to support development practitioners in exploring the use of or designing, implementing, and investing in ICT enabled agriculture interventions.

The first of these forums will look at Strengthening Agricultural Marketing with ICT.

Sourcebook module 9 begins with an overview of the need for and impact of ICTs in agricultural marketing, especially from the perspectives of producers, consumers, and traders. Specifically, the forum will look at mobile phones as a marketing tool; evidence that ICT is changing logistics and transaction costs; the use of ICTs for market research (both for acquiring immediate market information and acquiring market intelligence over time); and the use of ICTs to make input supply and use more effective.

Participating Subject Matter experts include:

Grahame Dixie, World Bank
Shaun Ferris, Catholic Relief Services
Judy Payne, USAID
Eija Pehu, World Bank
Rantej Singh, Reuters Market Light, Thompson Reuters

To participate in the forum, you must be registered on the e-Agriculture community website. All e-Agriculture forums are asynchronous conversations, and run non-stop for their two week duration. It is possible to log on at any time from anywhere to participate.

December 2, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Climate Change, Environment, Environment, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Fasttrack Service for Farmers’ Climate Change Questions!

Photo Credit: Ken Banks, kiwanja.net

Farmers in Zambia with climate change questions can now receive quick answers via SMS from a new feedback SMS system developed by the country’s National Agricultural Information Services (NAIS) together with, a local software developer, SMSize and International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD).

Through the SMSize system, farmers can send questions via an SMS from their cell phones which go directly to a computer server at the central office, where the producer researches the answer and sends back the information to the phone of the querying farmer, in the same language as the original request. With this new system, farmers receive relevant and more customized answers to their climate change questions within 24 hours.

The system replaces the traditional system as seen below:

a) A farmer with questions fills an evaluation form and send it to the nearest NAIS district office,

b) The district office passes the form to the provincial office,

c) The form is then sent to the main country office,

d) A NAIS radio producer assesses the questions, and contacts relevant specialists in agricultural research institutes and government ministries,

e) Based on their feedback, the producer prepares a response for broadcast in a the next radio program.

With this old system, farmers had to to wait for months before receiving answers to their climate change questions.

‘Instead of taking several weeks, the farmers now get the information within a day or two,’ said Kahilu. ‘We also still use the questions and concerns raised by the farmers to develop material for radio programs which will help other farmers facing similar problems.’

The increasing number of questions from farmers concerning unpredictable weather patterns in recent years to the Zambia National Agricultural Information Services (NAIS) necessitated a discussion with the local software developer which has led to the development of the system.

Ripfumelo: “Getting to Zero” with ICTs

Photo Credit: Ripfumelo

Initiated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM)’s Regional Office for Southern Africa and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2009, the Ripfumelo (“believe” in xiTsonga language) program is designed to reduce HIV vulnerability among farm workers in South Africa’s Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces. The project works to develop a network of stakeholders working specifically on HIV-related issues to reduce the high incidence and impact of HIV on farm workers, their families, and communities. It aims to address individual and contextual factors that increase vulnerability to HIV amongst commercial agricultural workers. These include the mobility and migratory factors associated with the nature of the work, such as limited access to services, gender dynamics and lack of healthier recreational activities. But little is known about innovative use of information and communication technologies to help achieve the strategic goal of Ripfumelo. As the world celebrates AIDS Day, it is important to reflect on issues like this and look at ways by which ICTs can be effectively integrated into such a project to help achieve the 2015 target of “Getting to Zero” with HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS and Its Impact on Agriculture The adverse effects of HIV/AIDS on agriculture and rural development are manifested primarily as loss of labor supply, of on- and off-farm income and of assets. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for example noted that, the consequences of HIV/AIDS – poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, reduced labor force and loss of knowledge – contribute to making the rural poor more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS infection. Other studieshave identified the devastating effects of HIV/AIDS on farmers in specific and agriculture in general as;

Reduced staff productivity through loss in human resources, absenteeism due to morbidity and funeral attendance, morbidity-related on-the-job fatigue, and staff demoralization.
Increase in Ministerial expenditures through costs related to HIV/AIDS absenteeism, medical costs, burial costs, recruitment and replacement costs/productivity loss after training, terminal benefits, and costs incurred to protect the rights of staff members living with HIV/AIDS at the workplace.
Increase in staff turnover
Increase in the workload of the staff of ministries of agriculture
Loss of knowledge, skills and experience

Using ICTs and Social Media to fight HIV/AIDS Among FarmersBy their nature, ICTs have the potential to help reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS on agriculture through effective communication strategies. ICTs are helping through treatment and prevention programs, changing attitudes and practices, and making it possible to share success and best practices.

Access to information on HIV/AIDS by these farm workers is key to the fight against the pandemic among them. Radio and television are basic communication tools that could help disseminate information on the danger of contracting HIV/AIDS to these farm workers.
Access to data on these individuals and their settings is also key in designing effective program for them. Information and communication technologies such as mobile phones and other hand-held devices could be used to gather instant and accurate data for the organizations involved in the project.
ICTs and social media could be used in training and educating both the migrant workers and their hosts on HIV/AIDS.
Information communication technologies could also be used through diagnosis and treatment support services for these migrant farm workers who have limited access to basic health services. Mobile health services and other e-medicine programs are being used for other diseases.
Affected farm workers could be supported and encouraged through sharing of experiences and challenges by others through the use of videos and photographs.
The Internet as a global public medium could be used to win the victims support from their governments, NGOs and other well wishers.
Testimonies of People Living with HIV/AIDS could be documented and shared with these migrant communities during training and workshops.
Internet websites, and social networking sites like Facebook could also be used as secondary medium in reaching out to these people.

ICTs are collaborating tools and with the goal of the Ripfumelo program to network stakeholders working on the issue, there should not be any delay in integrating these tools to reach their target. Remember “Getting to Zero” is 2015.

December 1, 2011/by actualize

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

12 Opportunities for Mobile Telecommunications in Agriculture

Photo Credit: Vodafone

In their recent report “Connected Agriculture,” Vodafone and Accenture with support from Oxfam outlined 12 opportunities that mobile telecommunication has for farmers.

The opportunities were identified as ‘the most important’ through stakeholder consultations and are grouped into four categories.

Category I: Improving Access to Financial Services through increasing access and affordability to these services tailored for agricultural purposes. The opportunities under this category include:

1. Mobile Payment Systems which offer people without access to financial services an affordable and secure way to transfer and save money using their mobile phones.

2. Micro-Insurance System that protects farmers against losses when bad weather harms their harvest, encouraging them to buy higher-quality seeds and invest in fertilizer and other inputs.

3. Micro-Lending Platforms that connect smallholders in developing countries with individuals elsewhere willing to provide finance to help the farmers to buy much-needed agricultural inputs.

Category II: Provision of Agricultural Information i.e. delivering information relevant to farmers, such as agricultural techniques, commodity prices and weather forecasts, where traditional methods of communication are limited. The opportunities under this category are:

4. Mobile Information Platforms that link farmers to receive texts with news and information that help to improve the productivity of their land and increase their incomes.

5. Farmer Helplines that connect farmers to agricultural experts who can provide quick and accurate answers to agricultural queries

Category III: Improving Data Visibility for Supply Chain Efficiency. This is done through optimizing supply chain management across the sector, and delivering efficiency improvements for transportation logistics. The opportunities here include:

6. Smart Logistics that use mobile technology to help distribution companies manage their fleets more efficiently – reducing costs for farmers and distributors, cutting fuel use and related carbon emissions and potentially preventing food losses.

7. Traceability and Tracking Systems that are use to track individual food products through the supply chain from grower to retailer.

8. Mobile Management of Supplier Networks that could use mobile phones to manage their networks of small-scale growers and help field agents collect information.

9. Mobile Management of Distribution Networks such as agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizer and crop protection products could use mobile to gather sales and stock data, improving availability for farmers and increasing sales.

Category IV: Enhancing Access to Markets i.e. by enhancing the link between commodity exchanges, traders, buyers and sellers of agricultural produce. The opportunities for mobile telecommunications are:

10. Agricultural Trading Platforms that use mobile technologies to link smallholder farmers directly with potential buyers thereby helping them to secure the best price for their produce, as well as promoting investment in agriculture and reducing food losses.

11. Agricultural Tendering Platforms that allow mobile technologies for submitting and bidding on tenders for food distribution, processing and exporting could make the agricultural supply chain more competitive and efficient.

12. Agricultural Bartering Platforms could use mobile technologies to help agricultural workers in rural communities exchange goods and services and improve communities’ livelihoods.

Some of the benefits that could be obtained from these opportunities are monitoring resources and tracking products; unlocking productivity potential while helping to manage the impacts of increased production, such as increased water use and greenhouse gas emissions; increasing agricultural income by around US$138 billion across 26 of Vodafone’s markets in 2020; helping to meet the challenge of feeding an estimated 9.2 billion people by 2050; helping to cut carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 5 mega tonnes (Mt) in these markets; and reducing freshwater withdrawals for agricultural irrigation by 6%, with significant savings in water-stressed regions. These benefits assume there will be around 549 million mobile connections to relevant services in 2020.

November 22, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

The Advent of Mobile Finanical Services in Agriculture

Close up of man in Africa looking at his cell phone As the global population continues to grow – it is expected to reach more than 9 billion by 2050. It will require a 70% increase in food production above current levels. Most of this increased yield will have to be achieved in less developed countries (LDCs), many of whose farmers operate on a small scale and are highly exposed to crop failure and adverse commodity price movements. This month, Vodafone, Accenture and Oxfam released a report on mAgriculture. The report titled “Connected Agriculture” assesses the potential benefits of new mobile data services such as mobile financial services, weather forecasts, and agriculture information and advice for smallholding farmers operating in marginal circumstances.

Additionally, in light of market saturation, MNOs face the task of growing average revenue per user (ARPU) and market share in rural areas. Agricultural Value Added Services (Agri VAS) present a considerable business opportunity due to the enormous potential user base in LDCs. The farming sector in these countries often suffers from chronically low productivity. Lack of information acts upon productivity and income levels like a glass ceiling. However, with increasing teledensity in the developing world – Africa is being tipped to pass one billion mobile subscriptions and become the world’s second largest mobile market by 2016, mobiles are uniquely positioned to address the information and financial needs of farmers – an intervention that can help increase their incomes, yields and economic wellbeing. Vodafone’s research indicates potential $138 billion addition to developing world farmers’ incomes by 2020

The financial and information opportunities at the base of the pyramid (BOP) in themselves hold significant untapped value for the private sector. The BOP has both intricate financial and information needs, which have the potential to be met through mobile money and information-based mobile services. Mobile Money can reduce the financial gap for farmers by giving them access to savings and insurance, which in itself reduces the impact of extreme weather and allows for greater investment in improving production.[1] Meanwhile, m-information services have the potential to open up significant markets opportunities, by relaying sales prices, GIS-based commodity demand information, as well as more basic yet essential information on agricultural best practices and reliable weather forecasts.

While there are existing agricultural information services provided via traditional channels such as radio and television, government extension services as they are usually referred to can be made much more efficient by leveraging the mobile channel. This can help improve their quality and trust amongst user communities increasing their potential for scale. In addition, by linking to them to mobile financial services, farmers will not only improve their productivity but will also be empowered to make better investment and risk management decisions (e.g. request credit for new fertilizers or other inputs they need to grow more and better crops). These benefits are also likely to extend to the wider community as increased agricultural income helps rural families afford education, healthcare and other services.

The GSMA mAgri Programme

The Development Fund’s mAgri Programme was set up in 2009 to accelerate the development, provision and adoption of mobile solutions to benefit the agriculture sector in emerging markets. In June 2011, the programme announced the second phase of their mobile agricultural programme, the introduction of the mFarmer Initiative, a partnership between GSMA, USAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The scope of the mFarmer Initiative is to support mobile phone operators and agricultural partners in launching commercially viable mobile information services that bridge the information gap and increase the productivity and income of rural small-holders. It aims to attract 2 million of the worlds’ poorest farmers to become users of mFarmer Services by 2013. This compliments their previous work on mobile agricultural services in India and Kenya.

The team has recently launched the Agri VAS Market Entry Toolkit which explores the opportunities for Agricultural VAS and covers emerging best practice on marketing, service design and business modelling. It is primarily addressed to Mobile Network Operators (MNOs), other service providers, and agricultural organisations that are looking to partner and launch Agri VAS.

Just as the successful provision of mobile financial services for the BOP requires innovative partnership models; Agri VAS will require similar efforts from the part of its stakeholders. While MNOs have a leading role to play, they will need the collective support and partnerships from key stakeholders in the agricultural supply chain in order to fully unlock the benefits for farmers in LDCs.

November 21, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

“Agriculture Goes High Tech” – A Decade of Digital Video!

Photo Credit: Penn State Extension

It is over 10 years now that the Commonwealth of Learning Media Empowerment (COLME) program hit the media with the headline “Agriculture Goes High Tech With Digital Video”. This came up as a result of the success of their pilot project that used digital technology to produce farm instructional videos in Ghana and Jamaica for extension purposes.

Ever since, agriculture has gone up from one level of “high tech” to another where we now use thousands of “apps” for agriculture, even in the remotest part of the world. But what is the progress made so far in the development and implementation of digital video technologies in agricultural extension over the years? Have we been circling around the same principle with different technologies over the years? Is there a room for improving the application of videos in agriculture? What are some of the similarities and differences between some of the models used or being used by the implementing agencies?

I believe the incorporation of high techs in agriculture is not just to “romanticize” it but to ensure the benefits of the users – mostly rural farmers who are disadvantaged by virtue of their location (see my previous post on “Rurality”). As a result, the premise for the COLME program at the time was based on a feasibility study conducted in Jamaica that showed that agricultural extension workers had access to training but the system of ‘disseminating’ the information to farmers was not effective or efficient. Ever since (late 2000), the use of videos in capturing and disseminating agricultural information has progressed with several improved models currently being used by farmers all over the world. These models could be classified into either using videos to transmit scientific knowledge and innovations to farmers or using videos to share practices and experiences between and among farmers.

Below are few models that worth mentioning as I reflect on the future of digital videos in agricultural research and extension:

1 – Commonwealth of Learning Media Empowerment (COLME) and Communication of Scientific Knowledge

Beginning from the COLME program, the use of digital video has improved extension services delivery over the traditional radio technology, which is use to support face-to-face information delivery to farmers. The COLME program acknowledged that using videos instead of radio could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural extension delivery. In collaboration with the Rural Agricultural Development Authority (RADA) in Jamaica, COLME assisted agricultural extension workers to use low-cost video production tools to develop training materials on good farm practices. Improvement is seen in visual content for demonstration to farmers, step-by-step training methods watched by farmers, and increasing access to content by illiterate farmers who could not read.

This was an excellent innovation at the time with emphasis on scientists using video technology to improve the delivery of their innovations to farmers. Scientists capturing their own demonstrations on videos and sharing them with farmers resulted in improved farm management practices by the farmers who were invloved.

2 – PROLINNOVA (PROmoting Local INNOVAtion) and Sharing of Local Knowledge and Innovations

Around the same time as the COLME program, PROLINNOVA an NGO-initiated multistakeholder program that promotes local innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and natural resource management (NRM) also started using videos to capture and document farmers’ local knowledge and innovations. With the emphasis on farmers’ local innovations, PROLINNOVA went a step ahead of the COLME program to not only disseminate external content through videos but also utilize internal innovations. Approaches such as Farmer Led Documentation (FLD) and Participatory Innovation Development (PID) have been used extensively in the developing nations to demonstrate the effectiveness of user-led innovation for sustainable development, and the advantages in building strong farmer-extension-researcher partnerships.

The strength of PROLINNOVA in the use of digital videos for agricultural improvement could be attributed to their use of local knowledge and innovations of the people. This I believe is key for the future use of videos in agriculture. When local farmers from one community watch farm management practices of their colleagues from another community, it gives them a better understanding of the process than the traditional extension service delivery.

3 – Agro-Insight and the use of Socio-Technical System in Video Production

The work of Agro-Insight in the use of digital videos for improving extension services delivery cannot be overlooked. As a dynamic enterprise that merges expertise from science, communication and arts to support sustainable agriculture and equitable trade, Agro-Insight works closely with institutions and organizations to enhance their impact on rural communities through reflective research and effective video, radio and print material production. In addition to the emphasis on local farmers activities, Agro-Insight aims at contributing to a more sustainable agriculture and trade by enhancing reflection and learning among farmers, the R&D community, agribusinesses and civil society.

The combination of R&D with local practices through videos is a plus with the Agro-Insight innovation. Rural farmers do believe in their local innovations but understanding these innovations through research, and seeking farmers view on the potency of these innovations in the current technological age is needed.

4 – Video Viewing Club (VVC) and Farmer Involvement in Production and Analysis of Videos

Another specific project that is using videos to improve agricultural production is the Video Viewing Club (VVC) of the Sustainable Tree Crop Production (STCP) program of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Using farmer training activities such as Video Viewing Clubs, local farmers are trained to collect data on their own farming activities, write scripts, edit and produce short videos/clips that cover a number of farm practices. The project, which started mainly within the cocoa sector, is expected to cover some other food crops such as cassava in the near future. Cocoa farmers in clubs are trained to document farm management practices in topics such pruning, black pod disease control, harvesting/pod breaking and fermentation techniques. These clips are viewed with experts and discussions take place for further explanation of issues arising from the videos.

VVC innovation is also unique by putting local farmers into small groups and training them to be in charge of the research process – observing issues in their communities, gathering data through interviews with their colleagues, writing scripts and producing videos. The most positive part of this innovation, I think, is the discussion that takes place between the club members, other community members and the scientists during the viewing of the clips. This will lead to greater understanding of the process and activities that have been documented.

5 – Digital Green and the Combination of Science and Technology in Videos

Digital Green is a newer approach to the use of digital videos in agricultural extension services delivery. It emphasizes a socio-technical system approach by combining the technologies with existing people-based extension systems to amplify their effectiveness. It taps into local social networks to connect farmers with experts to minimize the distance between teacher and learner. Videos are produced by farmers; of farmers; and for farmers across the field locations. The video production process is participatory, human-mediated instruction model for video dissemination and training, a hardware and software technology platform for exchanging data in areas with limited Internet and electrical grid connectivity, and an iterative model to progressively better address the needs and interests of the community with analytical tools and interactive phone-based feedback channels.

Digital Green is also utilizing farmers as a key resource in the documentation process. Also acknowledged by this innovation is the importance of the social processes rather than the technology. If the technology is to have impact, the social processes need to be well organized.

So what is the future of Digital Videos in Agricultural Research and Extension?

I believe there are a great number of projects and programs out there that are currently using videos in agricultural extension service delivery. These other programs as well as those mentioned above do all have one common goal – to improve knowledge sharing through digital technologies for increased agricultural productivity. These approaches are seen in agricultural experts developing scientific methods of farming through videos for farmers’ use; training farmers to use videos to document their farm management practices (not necessarily their local knowledge and innovations); and then training farmers to document their own local knowledge and innovations that could be shared with other farmers.

In addition to the use of videos in extension services delivery, videos are also being used in agricultural research work. The Power of Video in Research by ICT-KM at CGIAR argue that videos and the Internet have revolutionized the way in which an increasing number of scientists are now communicating ideas and the results of their research. There are easier ways now to use videos to record scientific results and then use them in farmer education. Videos are being used to efficiently convey large amounts of information and depict scientific procedures that would otherwise require pages upon pages of written text to achieve the same level of understanding; show things that take place over time as if they are face-to-face events; raise awareness of issues; document science and share new scientific methodologies that can help build capacity; and generate new applications and innovation.

November 10, 2011/by actualize

Tag Archive for: agriculture

Case Studies

Contact Details

Quick Links

About

Expertise

Impact

Join

Sign up for Updates