A strategic insertion of digitized agriculture data can best be explained, perhaps, by way of example specific to nutrient management.  Nutrient management is extremely complicated to implement in the best of conditions given the rate and timing of nutrient application, its placement as well as the measurement and assessment.  These data points also need to be algorythmically evaluated together with other variables like soil condition and weather.  It seems undeniable to many that leveraging digitized and artificially-intelligence enabled supply chain data flows from sensors and satellites and more, on behalf of the very best nutrient management practices, will have the largest most immediate impact on lives of farmers due to higher quantity and quality of production.  A key challenge is that in order to reach the fullest potential for nutrient management the agriculture sector must become more aware of the technology, business model and economic dynamics of blockchain, sensors, UAV's,  wires, satellites, controllers, monitors, computer programs and more.  How do we respond to this key challenge?  I just read a wonderful report by FAO on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) with multiple case studies on their use in rice and other crops.   

Meanwhile, there is rapidly emerging the formation of cross sectoral partnerships to deliver agriculture digital solutions.  It includes agribusinesses, mobile network operators, financial institutions, civil society, etc.  From Ghana to Kenya and points in between agribusinesses, MNOs, donors and others have partnered and are continuing to partner on multiple initiatives.  A key challenge here is how can we begin to codify a strategic approach to the formation of agriculture digital solution alliances?  This codification can be best served by first having this discussion about ethics, legality and policy.  

To the ethics question for today:  There is signficant investment by global, regional and local agribusiness and other private sector players to deliver digital products and services to farmers.  What is missing from their investment decisions is any real farmer perspective or voice.  This discussion we are having is vitally important so that we can consider the ethics, legality and policies in order to help the farmers share their voice with the supply chain from their cell phone.   Key ethical considerations include data ownership and data privacy.  I recently wrote about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its contrast to blockchain technology here:

https://medium.com/@leebabcock/digital-version-2-0-for-poor-farmers-1d97b8384a27 

To the legal and policy questions for today:  What kind of policies do we need?  An analogy is the European 'principles-based' International Accounting Standards (IAS) compared to the U.S. 'rules-based' Generally Accepted Accounting Standards (GAAP).  This is like comparing 15 pages of IAS 'policy' guidance to 5000 pages of GAAP 'policy' guidance.  When we think about policies and standards for agriculture data are we thinking about 'principles' or 'rules' or both?   When we kinda have an eye on what type of policies and standards this will best inform our thinking about legal issues.  

I should share my frame of reference that informs what I think is the future for data driven agriculture for smallholder farmers.  My frame of reference is that digitizing global, regional and local supply chains is a great and new frontier of business opportunity.  Further, that for any such opportunity to be successful it must be focused on serving the needs of the farmer and the farming family.  Without the scale of serving the high number of farmers the low profit margin nature of digital will significantly limit (if not eliminate) any digital agriculture business venture/initiative.  

In addition, the new cryptographic security technology that allows for validation, verification and consensus across global computers is as much a reality now as the law of gravity. Since we know blockchain will be the future it would seem appropriate for us to frame our important discussions about agriculture data in alignment with the three types of blockchains: public, consortia and private.  Briefly, public blockchains are fully decentralized, consortia blockchains are partially decentralized and private blockchains are centralized.   There is a discussion happening now about the merits of each and why one or the other should win and the others lose.  I think the future will include all three and that they will interoperate.    This aligns with CGIAR's promotion of open data (decentralized) when possible but closed data (centralized) as necessary which, to my mind, includes gradations of data (partially decentralized) in between.  Even if one believes blockchain is a fad, the rigor of thinking about authentication, validation, verification and consensus of data for each type of blockchain will add value when architecting any non-blockchain database.         

As we continue to harmonize our farm and farmer data in order to interoperate databases in the cloud for big data analytics, we should focus our thinking on how a database architect would approach creating such a database.  The architect will establish hierarchical data ecosystem parameters.  As such, should our hierarchical starting point be the farm and not the farmer? Is not the farmer simply an important (the most important) variable in the algorithmic equation that improves land productivity and crop quality? If so, how does this help frame the data ecosystem? In addition, while the farmer may be only a subset of data, that hierarchically rolls up into the farm data, our work with blockchains should have the guiding philosophy that farmers have the right to own, control and monetize their own data on any of the three types of blockchains.  This guiding philosophy is in exact alignment with, and written into the 'DNA' code of, blockchain as described by Satoshi Nakamoto who wrote the bitcoin white paper. 

So my "desired scenario for the future" is actually the reality of what has been significant private sector investment and rapidly increasing future investments to deploy blockchain in agriculture.  Given what we know about the exponential scale of technological adoption, in the near(er) term future we can imagine farmers equipped with better decision making tools derived from artificial intelligence that cranks through sensor, UAV, satellite, GIS and other rich data sources.    Finally, my desired scenario also includes civil society providing a healthy and robust counterbalance to the private sector's focus on bottom line profitability.  

Some key barriers to uptake by farmers include; illiteracy, financial illiteracy, digital illiteracy and lack of trust.  Recent mAgri experience in Malawi (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m8qj.pdf), Kenya (http://www.technoserve.org/files/downloads/case-study-connected-farmer-alliance.pdf), Tanzania and elsewhere reveal that in our rush to roll out platforms in rural areas we have not acknowledged these key barriers in terms of promoting awareness and education amongst farmers.  There has also been little/no regard for the requisite internal change management within agribusinesses to secure mgmt and staff buy-in.  

For issues such as; crop diseases/pests, increased production quality/quantity, cooperative formation and improved post harvest handling it is interesting to note that NGOs, civil society and governments will robustly respond with traditional agriculture knowledge transfer initiatives.  Decision makers should embrace ICT as simply another content area of agriculture that can be added to the traditional menu of agriculture knowledge transfer content areas.  To date, any ICT4Ag awareness and education that has been done has happened on an ad hoc basis.  By integrating ICT into the traditional menu of agri knowledge transfer we will 'institutionalize' the promotion of awareness and education amongst the farmers as well as other value chain stakeholders.   

Unlike the traditional content areas, from a practical standpoint this will require that NGO, civil society and government invest the resources to create and deliver  - for the first time - ICT4Ag training curricula.  In addition, these entities also need to develop their own human capacity in ICT.  In addition, as with the previously mentioned lack of internal change management and mgmt and staff buy-in by agribusinesses .....there needs to be the same internal change management and mgmt and staff buy-in by NGO, civil society and government.       

Our previous discussion about 'What is Resilience'  was focused on agriculture, food security, nutrition, etc.  Nevertheless, the discussion was also germane to health, livelihoods, social protection, education and all other aspects of the hard lives our farmers and their families live in rural areas.   We might all agree that the most predominant sector in rural areas in terms of providing livelihood, income, employment, etc is agriculture.  We might all also agree that the chief characteristic of ICT as a technology is that it has equal potential to positively impact multiple sectors; agriculture, health, education, utilities, etc.

Within the ICT4Ag space there is a clear trend away from individual 'apps' and towards bundling multiple ICT functionalities; digital finance, surveillance, marketing, agri extension and supply chain management onto the same platform(s).  Global software as a service (SaaS) provider SAP as well as regional/local ICT4Ag platforms like Esoko, Farmerline, VotoMobile and others have very recently moved in this direction.  In fact, one outcome of CTA's seminal ICT4Ag late-2013 conference in Kigali was this very need to bundle ICT4Ag functionalities to achieve economies of scale and enhance the benefits to farmers and other stakeholders.  Lets call this ICT4Ag Version 2.0.

Given the rapid pace of technological and business model change, the next step will be to leverage the foundation of ICT4Ag Version 2.0 that extends all the way into the smallholder farming household .......to add onto the platform modules/functionalities specific to health (proper hygiene, child care, drug reminder messages, etc.), education, etc.  Lets call this mHub Version 1.0.  Therefore, to leverage agriculture as the gateway to serving all the other mHub (ICT/mobile) needs in rural areas our current ICT4Ag community must have, as Sinead points out, the "courage to work in broad coalitions" to harness the power of ICT to solve 'wicked' problems in rural areas.       

This discussion question is "How should the use of ICTs best be integrated in resilience programmes or projects?".  Our ICT4Ag community is nicely positioned (given the overarching importance of agriculture in rural areas) to play a leadership role in pulling in other sectors as we go forward.  So.....to best integrate ICT in resilience programes we should consider casting a wider net to include other non-agriculture sectors that are also very germane to the lives of our farmers!  

As Peter describes poor internet connectivity is a hard constraint as are other items like lack of cell phones, ecosystems of cashin/cash agents, lack of mobile devices for agri extension agents, etc.  Soft constraints can be items like lack of awareness, education and training throughout the rural value chain.  If seems a safe assumption that market dynamics will soon further reduce or eliminate the hard constraints.  I say this because global, regional and local private sector players are continuing to embrace the potential of making money at the base of the economic pyramid by streamlining their supply chain(s) and, as well, there are initiatives such as the Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI) http://a4ai.org/ .  Therefore, within the development space it seems we can get the biggest 'bang for our buck' by embracing the need and programming for inititiatives/programs/projects that promote awareness, education and training.  Further, these initiatives should be done within the framework of cross-sectoral partnerships with; private sector, civil society, government and other stakeholders in order to coordinate reponses to the increasingly 'wicked' issues related to rural resiliency.  

We should note that within the ICT4Ag space which began a little more than a decade ago the major focus was developing 'apps'.  For the most part ICT4Ag to date has had little scale and sustainability because the 'apps' were primarily designed with the thought that farmers will pay.  Unfortunately, even though they can be great for the farmer our farmers live such a hard life they can only, and must, make their decisions on a short term, day-to-day basis.  Nevertheless, we now have ubiquitous ICT4Ag 'apps' so it seems the way forward for ICT4Ag Version 2.0 is that we move the app business models farther up the value chain to stakeholders with the financial capacity and built-in incentive to connect with their smallholder producers.   Within the framework of cross sectoral partnerships for ICT4Ag Version 2.0 we must 'institutionalize' the promotion of ICT awareness, education and training within targeted value chains not only amongst farmers and other rural citizens but within the management and staff of other value chain stakeholders.   This type of 'training' of multiple beneficiaries is a core capacity, and is part of the mission, of the development sector.  

"ICT" for most people equates to the transfer of information.  To further inform and frame our continued discussions we should also equate ICT as the transfer of value such as e-vouchers and digital payments/finance.  Digital payments/finance have saturated the urban areas and mobile financial service providers (MFSPs) are looking for strategies and partners for rolling out in rural areas.  As digital payments/finance & e-voucher channels are created in rural areas those same channels can be used for the transfer of value to help farmers and others withstand and recover from shocks.   

The discussions in this e-agriculture forum have been illuminating and have given me pause for reflection.  Our discussions have, understandably, considered hard content topics (e.g. stakeholders, methods, applications, lessons learned, etc.) but it would seem of benefit to also consider soft content topics (e.g. values, culture, philosophy, etc.) to provide a vision and mission for the tactical, hard content topics. A national level e-agriculture strategy should be clear that ICTs are not the solution but are merely enablers for people who create the solutions.  As such, our strategy should promote empowerment, training and education as a segway to the requisite cultural shift – from top down, prescriptive governmental directives - to knowledge sharing, trust and transparency. 

In addition to promoting a culture change, a people first approach will also position the strategy for the ambiguity of the future.  The pace of technological change seems to outstrip our capacity to keep up with those changes.  Any type of prescriptive e-agriculture strategy will quickly become obsolete.  To that end I believe a worthy answer to Nyaneba’s (Edward Addo-Dankwa) query in Question 3 might be that an e-agriculture strategy should not be based on an existing agricultural strategy because it will likely be top down and prescriptive. By focusing on knowledge sharing, trust and transparency individuals will be better equipped to rapidly respond to changes in ICT technologies, business models and paradigms within the context of an e-agriculture strategy.

So to bring this back to the discussion, a top down, prescriptive governmental directive will not work (question 4).   A strategy that promotes empowerment, training and education of people provides a ‘values’ messaging (question 2).  This will contribute to a process for aligning an appropriate vision and mission (question 3) with the tactical, hard content topics that we have discussed. 

For non-agri sectors the 20th century was all about achieving organizational and supply chain efficiencies (e.g. Malcolm Baldridge Awards, ISO 9000, just in time manufacturing, etc.).   For agricultural value chains, ICTs and mobile money will not only promote greater efficiencies but also increased economies of scale.   Agricultural ICTs and mobile money will do for the base of the economic pyramid what commercial banking did for the Industrial Revolution!

Many thanks for this Ajit! 

An e-agriculture strategy must consider all the stakeholders in the national value chains.  In addition, as you state, such strategy should also consider integration with numerous other needs of rural society such as e-health, e-education, payments/finance, solar power/lanterns and more.   I consider agriculture as the gateway to serving these other needs because agri is the most significant livelihood and generates the most significant streams of bi-directional payments (farmer inputs purchases and crop sales) in rural areas.  This means that agriculture presents the greatest potential for design of commercially viable ICT platforms (e.g. click through rates, subscription fees, commissions, etc.) and mobile money platforms (e.g. reduced costs for large commodity buyers, transaction fees for MNOs, etc.).   Once these platforms are stood up, we can then add these other societal needs that will increase uptake and the overall value/benefit of the platform because more people use it.  

To borrow from author Thomas Friedman, and extend your own mention of ‘democratization of learning’, ICT also presents potential to democratize information and finance.  You nicely portray this with your three informational networks; 1) for food/commodities production at input, farm, processor and consumer levels, 2) for transport, storage, wholesale, retail shelf level marketing   and 3) for flow of money.    Unfortunately, lacking an e-agriculture strategy in the past helps explain the chaotic, ad hoc nature of the institutional approach(es) to regulations, standards, policies, etc. that you point out in your third bullet.  So it is not surprising that there has been “little integration of all three types of information flows and networks”.   

In the same way the three most important words in real estate are ‘location, location, location’…..the three most important words in agriculture are ‘aggregation, aggregation, aggregation’.  An e-agriculture strategy should create the enabling environment for ICT/mobile money commercial solutions that capture aggregated volume activity.  While such strategy will consider all the stakeholders, the potential of ICT/mobile money to aggregate farmer activities – both directly (your networks 1 and 3) and indirectly (your network 2) -- will present the strongest economic value proposition(s) for the creation of networked, sustainable solutions.

Thanks Josh and other contributors to the guide!

While implicit in Part 1 of the guide it might be worth thinking about pulling out 'farmer trust' to be more front and center.  There are so many types of digital functionalities (e.g. extension, payments, market pricing, etc.) and models (e.g. end-user based with basic handsets, field-agent based, etc.) with multiple stakeholders (farmers, input suppliers, cooperatives, etc.).  A worthy strategic approach to all these options/possibilities is to think about aligning farmer trust with the requisite levels of technical and partnership complexities.  In other words....the first roll out of functionalities  should ideally require the least amount of trust/commitment from the farmer (SMS public service announcements, ag extension, etc.).  After some months or more than a year (depending on harvest cycle, farmer demographic, etc.) -- after the farmer has seen the benefit(s) and their trust increases....we roll out the next phase of functionalities (e.g. field-agent, smart phone ag extension, etc.- that provides richer content)  that have more complex partnership (e.g. content providers) and technical requirements (e.g. devices, cloud-based data, GPS, etc.).  Thereafter.......financial inclusion functionalities (that have even greater technical and partnership complexities and a higher requisite level of farmer trust) can be the next phase.  And so on.......

This would not preclude an ICT insertion at Phase 3 or Phase 2, for example, but such framework in an 'e-agriculture strategy guide' will provide clarity and illuminate our thinking by placing farmers and farmer trust 'front and center'.   After all, any worthwhile target market segmentation strategy must have a focus on the 'end customer'.