I am no expert on input but in my field support work I see efforts by AG development projects to facilitate the availability of better information on availability of inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizer) and the prices of these inputs. Here are two examples. I'd be interested if others have examples or insights.
e-Choupal is probably the "grandfather" of all ICT in agriculture applications and it is funded totally by ITC, a large Indian company that buys and export grains and more (e.g., soy). Via village PC's with Internet access, farmers can learn of prices paid by ITC and by local public markets (mandis). (see http://www.echoupal.com/ as well as many case studies on e-Choupal on the web) The e-Choupal system also provides information to farmers on the best inputs to use and sells these to farmers. By using these recommended inputs, farmers can increase the quality (and quantity probably) of their harvests. ITC gains because it has a better source of products and farmers gain as well. Hence, a private buyer finds it advantageous to provide information on inputs to farmers.
The second example is in east Africa. It is a web portal for input prices and availability called AMITSA (www.amitsa.org ) operated by IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Center, an international NGO) in collaboration with the East Africa Community (EAC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). (AMITSA operates on a technical platform from Esoko.) I am interested in any information someone might have on the impact of AMITSA so far which may vary considerably by country.
Shahid Akbar Bangladesh Institute of ICT in Development (BIID) Bangladesh
Dear Judy,
Thanks for share these excellent examples, and just to add our field experiences of e-Krishok, we also observed that farmers are in need of input (mostly pesticides and seed).
Usually, retailers at local level promote different inputs and some are not good quality, but due to low price and high commission they pursue these low grade inputs to the farmers. Also it happens due to non-availability of quality inputs at local level. As e-Krishok is building awareness among the farmers on using quality inputs, we find now that farmers are also very keen to avail the quality input even though these are high priced.
In a recent move, BIID partnered with ACI Limited to offer quality inputs (pesticide, seed and fertilizer) to ensure reaching good quality input at farmers doorstep.
In e-Krishok service, when we recommend any input, we make sure that the recommended input maintains certain standard. Pl visit us at www.ekrishok.com or www.biid.org.bd
I think what needs to be included is a business promotion of these ICT services, where individuals talk to farmers about the service and set up back-up systems that will make access to them easier. But also the issue of credit and marketing would need to be addressed. This can enhance the value of ICT services that target to provide input information to smallholder farmers.
I recently attended a market place for financial products in Eldoret where I came accross the Icow application. This applications provides information on inputs for dairy farmers including extension information.
Inputs value chains are in my view as multilayered and complex as the output ones. Large input companies rely on a complex distribution channel to get down to the farmers level. In some countries, this can go up to 5 layers of distributors, dealers, retailers, etc.
Hence, the information that has to go with the products tends to be lost. This is especially problematic when you talk about old organic chemistries like organophosphates. In other words, it is like buying an antibiotic with no prescription or little experts advice.
But the biggest problem has been mentionned earlier in that post: input stores are driven by brand-specific financial incentives provided by dealers or MNC's in the form of year-end rewards, discounts on next order or even material gifts (motorbike, TV). This reduces the stores willingness to be price transparent. (exception for fertilizers/seeds subsidized in some countries)
This is why it is so hard for the farmer to obtain good, objective, independant advice on the best input to use. Farmers do shop around but credit lock-up and relationships can alter their choice further.
Generally I agree with you. Also problem more complicated with existance of fake inputs. I think ICT platform can help as credible users would have to be registered. However, this platform or ICT would need a promotional face that will interact with farmers. Its not enough to build an application. Its more important to show people how to use it and also to market the services thereon.
As I have tried to argue, I guess its the reason most ICT products that are nice are still failing to make business or to build large traffic/volume of users.
What we seem to learn from all the ICT products available is that its not the technical applications that matter, although these are really important. we need to get to the next stage - commercialize them, build a business model to support them. And sure the potential exists. It has to be identified or technical developers need to partner with smart entreprenuers? any contributions to this view?
mPedigree in Ghana works to prevent the use of counterfeit medication through the use of ICT. I wonder if anyone has considered applying the concepts they have to agricultural inputs? Of course the costs and distributions are quite different, but at least the concepts if not the technology could be relevant.
Thanks for these thoughts! I think the potential for applying the concepts of mPedigree to prevent counterfeits in inputs can be high. I also imagine that stakeholders ie sellers of inputs could shoulder some of these costs. This touches on the general question of what costs and who could shoulder them?
I am no expert on input but in my field support work I see efforts by AG development projects to facilitate the availability of better information on availability of inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizer) and the prices of these inputs. Here are two examples. I'd be interested if others have examples or insights.
e-Choupal is probably the "grandfather" of all ICT in agriculture applications and it is funded totally by ITC, a large Indian company that buys and export grains and more (e.g., soy). Via village PC's with Internet access, farmers can learn of prices paid by ITC and by local public markets (mandis). (see http://www.echoupal.com/ as well as many case studies on e-Choupal on the web) The e-Choupal system also provides information to farmers on the best inputs to use and sells these to farmers. By using these recommended inputs, farmers can increase the quality (and quantity probably) of their harvests. ITC gains because it has a better source of products and farmers gain as well. Hence, a private buyer finds it advantageous to provide information on inputs to farmers.
The second example is in east Africa. It is a web portal for input prices and availability called AMITSA (www.amitsa.org ) operated by IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Center, an international NGO) in collaboration with the East Africa Community (EAC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). (AMITSA operates on a technical platform from Esoko.) I am interested in any information someone might have on the impact of AMITSA so far which may vary considerably by country.
Judy
Dear Judy,
Thanks for share these excellent examples, and just to add our field experiences of e-Krishok, we also observed that farmers are in need of input (mostly pesticides and seed).
Usually, retailers at local level promote different inputs and some are not good quality, but due to low price and high commission they pursue these low grade inputs to the farmers. Also it happens due to non-availability of quality inputs at local level. As e-Krishok is building awareness among the farmers on using quality inputs, we find now that farmers are also very keen to avail the quality input even though these are high priced.
In a recent move, BIID partnered with ACI Limited to offer quality inputs (pesticide, seed and fertilizer) to ensure reaching good quality input at farmers doorstep.
In e-Krishok service, when we recommend any input, we make sure that the recommended input maintains certain standard. Pl visit us at www.ekrishok.com or www.biid.org.bd
Thanks,
Shahid
Dear Shahid and all,
I think what needs to be included is a business promotion of these ICT services, where individuals talk to farmers about the service and set up back-up systems that will make access to them easier. But also the issue of credit and marketing would need to be addressed. This can enhance the value of ICT services that target to provide input information to smallholder farmers.
Dear Judy,
I recently attended a market place for financial products in Eldoret where I came accross the Icow application. This applications provides information on inputs for dairy farmers including extension information.
For more information about it go to
http://icow.co.ke
Hi all,
Inputs value chains are in my view as multilayered and complex as the output ones. Large input companies rely on a complex distribution channel to get down to the farmers level. In some countries, this can go up to 5 layers of distributors, dealers, retailers, etc.
Hence, the information that has to go with the products tends to be lost. This is especially problematic when you talk about old organic chemistries like organophosphates. In other words, it is like buying an antibiotic with no prescription or little experts advice.
But the biggest problem has been mentionned earlier in that post: input stores are driven by brand-specific financial incentives provided by dealers or MNC's in the form of year-end rewards, discounts on next order or even material gifts (motorbike, TV). This reduces the stores willingness to be price transparent. (exception for fertilizers/seeds subsidized in some countries)
This is why it is so hard for the farmer to obtain good, objective, independant advice on the best input to use. Farmers do shop around but credit lock-up and relationships can alter their choice further.
Food for thought :-) Feel free to challenge
Mathieu
Dear Mathieu,
Generally I agree with you. Also problem more complicated with existance of fake inputs. I think ICT platform can help as credible users would have to be registered. However, this platform or ICT would need a promotional face that will interact with farmers. Its not enough to build an application. Its more important to show people how to use it and also to market the services thereon.
As I have tried to argue, I guess its the reason most ICT products that are nice are still failing to make business or to build large traffic/volume of users.
What we seem to learn from all the ICT products available is that its not the technical applications that matter, although these are really important. we need to get to the next stage - commercialize them, build a business model to support them. And sure the potential exists. It has to be identified or technical developers need to partner with smart entreprenuers? any contributions to this view?
mPedigree in Ghana works to prevent the use of counterfeit medication through the use of ICT. I wonder if anyone has considered applying the concepts they have to agricultural inputs? Of course the costs and distributions are quite different, but at least the concepts if not the technology could be relevant.
Sure Michael,
Thanks for these thoughts! I think the potential for applying the concepts of mPedigree to prevent counterfeits in inputs can be high. I also imagine that stakeholders ie sellers of inputs could shoulder some of these costs. This touches on the general question of what costs and who could shoulder them?
There are lot of opportunities to find out the same.