Kiringai Kamau
| Organization | VACID Africa |
|---|---|
| Organization type | Civil Society Organization/NGO |
| Organization role |
Founder and Value Chain Analyst
|
| Country | Kenya |
| Area of Expertise |
1. Agribusiness
2. Agricultural Value Chains 3. ICT for Agriculture 4. Development Economics 6. Organizational Development |
Kiringai Kamau is a Social Entrepreneur. He founded VACID Africa as an Africa Wide Capacity Building initiative that promotes networking among development institutions, workers and partners.
The delivery of his work involved close collaboration with Governments, Research institutions and Academia.
Kiringai believes in incubation of viable ideas into enterprises, the creation of value addition efforts into what communities do, the infusion of ICT in the weighing during agriculgural produce collection using electronic scales to ensure producers are not cheated at the critical point that determines how much they eventually earn. He believes in creating network of producers to support produce aggregation to ensure effective and beneficial engagement with market actors.
This member participated in the following Forums
Forum e-Agriculture: looking back and moving forward
Question 1 (opens 25 Nov.) What are the main achievements in the area of ICT for agriculture and rural development...
The success of this initiative still gets challenged because the platform of centralized data, and hence knowledge, sharing is thoroughly challenged as we do not have the right framework to benefit from the economies of scale in ownership of the ICT infrastructure by the value chain actors who necessarily should include the farmers/producers. While there is so much gain from the m-platforms, there still is so much else that is lacking at the back-end.
There is no doubt that the front end solutions through mobile apps have worked, the challenge that I see and one that from the recent CTA supported Kigali ICT4Ag Conference seemingly keeps searching is a solution which the likes of SAP, like us, are trying to address.
What I am putting across therefore is that, going forward, there is need for responses from this forum which the experience of the participants here can throw some light to. It may or may not include answers to the following:
- Can smallholder farmers afford to support procurement of SAP style applications?
- Can a freeware or open software be developed and supported through cloud sourcing to support universal access by mobiles?
- What is the role of communities in the ownership of an investment infrastructure that can drive more use of m-agri apps?
- How do we link market dynamics that can ensure value chain actors: producers, service providers who include the youth with their m-apps, and consumers who will link directly with sources of produce rather than relying on middlemen whose value add is derived from information asymmetry or distance.
- Can logistics networks use more of the m-apps to reduce distances to delivering produce to consumers and what considerations are necessary to achieve such....
I am still waiting for that Aha moment when I see something that resonates with my many years of searching and I know people out there are doing something that I can add to what I do to make a knowledge based solution to smallholder agriculture and community ICT investments, let me know what you have...
Kiringai
This session has presented very valuable posts, and referenced documents links that show the steps that have been taken to develop m-agri. A very good indication has been the engagemnent of the youth, as the sector seeks to engergise the agriculturally productive age of those working in farms (currently ranging from 45-65 as they own the productive resources).
My curiosity has been to find out if the value chain model which places actors in their most comfortable productive pedestal, as they interact productively with those others in their levels of comfort may need to be highlighted. To back this up, the more subtantive question may be: has m-agri created a platform or framework that brings the youth and the farmer to a win-win plane of collabroation, with the youth specializing in apps development while the farmer pays for connectivity and supports production as they benefit from the market linkage potential from the apps?
Furthermore, there may be need to know if there are examples of institutional models that engage the youth in an agricultural production level/plane; so that they do not develop apps to just win hackathons and competititons without traction with the ultimate consumer of the apps - the farmer.
Even if cases may not be cited, it may be very helpful to know from the techies if there are challenges of mutuality in collaboration, particularly in the development context that holds true in Africa, where land holdings are rather small. The youthful apps developers may need to articulate the challenges so that the WSIS+10 thinking is guided on the need to help plan and articulate the expectations and challenges of all actors going forward.
Kiringai
Forum Forum: "ICT and producer organizations" November, 2012
Question 4 (opens 20 Nov.)
We have used electronic handheld scales which then relay the data via GSM or Bluetooth to mobile storage devices for onward processing in a farmer organization’s data processing facility.
The accuracy and tamper proofing perspective in the digital weighing ensures that clerks procuring produce do not cheat illiterate women and youth who deliver produce to the buying/aggregation centre. In our assessment this has been empowering to both women and youth, whether literate or illiterate.
Furthermore, since the producer cooperatives using the technology are able to establish consumer outlet shops, women are able to procure items on credit on the basis of their digital weights rather than wait for the pay-day and deductions to be done when everybody gets their pay for the delivered produce.
On the same basis, women are able to get cheques paid directly to schools for school fees on the basis of the produce they have delivered to their collective and which is held in the computer systems of the collective.
What this has meant is that women and of course their children, have the ability to spend money earned from their sweat , for the household necessities and by taking consumables and household items, including fees on the basis of their produce (on credit) leaving the remainder to the men…many of whom use the money to ‘feel good’!
In my view, the technologies that we promote empowers the communities where we have seen incomes exceed $200 per month before dividends are paid at the end of the year for the dairy sector. For tea, we have not been able to do the household economic/financial benefit assessment.
We are now linking them to the for produce not marketed jointly reducing the layer from production to market/consumption using a market linkage website and through mobile phones for information, again benefiting those who have been marginalized.
BUT of course there are technologies that disenfranchise the women and children, those we do not touch!
Regards,
Kiringai
On Wed, Nov 21, 20
Thanks John,
During weighing, weighments captured using the digital scale are either stored in the scale memory, printed on a portable thermal printer or relayed to a hand held tablet or relayed to the producer collective action server using mobile GSM communication, which is real time while the others call for data to be delivered to the server when the produce collection/weighing track gets to the server room.
The cost for the field solution for each option is different with the cost of just having the scale storing the data being US$ 900, 950 with a thermal printer, 1000 with a Bluetooth scale and 1500 with the GSM data transmission scale. You can also have smart/mayfare cards recording going with the scale integrated with the Bluetooth scale. Where the tablet is used, the costs are higher as the tablets come from different suppliers from the scale and introduce new dimensions in terms of data security..
I trust that is sufficient explanation.
Regards,
Kiringai
OnQuestion 1 (opens 12 Nov.)
I am sorry I came late from the field and thought the exchanges flowing across present very good discourse. When I read some of the posts, of people who think they studied a long time ago, I get the impression that I am prehistoric...that aside though, I would like to support the thinking of the posters who seek to present the need to gather the knowledge of the farmers. Much of the posts are on the 'what'...we are missing much of the 'how', which is easy to explain as most of the posters are agriculturalist. I was poached from the ICT side and brought to agricultural research and hence try to fuse both the ICT and Agriculture in what I do with communities. The challenge is to ensure that the farmers relate with the technology, it promotes or supports their social orientation, and that it is affordable.
The model adopted by Digital Green in India <http://www.digitalgreen.org/> and driven by the Microsoft Geek who got swept out of ICT from Microsoft to integrate technology to communities has been a good example of what can be done using ICTs for communities. Video capture and storage and its integration with communication to users using the now freely available Google product YouTube - Google buys everything that has potential for the future particularly in driving its focus on owning ICT for the common people including Android!
I am about to leave for another field trip to work with the farmers where I try to help them create physical spaces like what is referred to as telecentres---am an enthusiast of this--- and have developed a model of interaction with the smallholders which you can see at: http://www.vacidafrica.or.ke/section-layout/3/143-avaak-implementation-model-.html. The critical challenge is making the farmers come to the point of investing in this model. My experience is that we can manage to get people not necessarily smallholder farmers alone much as they will be value chain actors in the ownership. The investment in the model is driven b y a share based organizational framework.
I am still researching on the model and would like to know how many people would be keen in working on this with me so that we can try to promote ICT usage using green energy solutions for which I have global partners working with me on the implementation side.
Visit also www.af-mip.net to see our mobile technology driven portal that we hope to link producers with the market using mobile money whose infrastructure we are currently finalizing. The learning curricula which is to be driven by the video perspective captured using smart phones as demonstrated by one of our trial sites at http://mobilemovement.tv/marketplace.
The collection of produce from smallholders is done through a weighment technology which was the basis of my engagement with agriculture which you will see at www.octagon,co.ke, which ensures that farmers do not lose their produce to clerks who are keen to falsify weights from illiterate farmers.
As you can see, we are trying to do a lot and therefore need to work with all researchers to bring the technology that works to agriculture, so if you miss me, know that I shall still read your posts even when in the budus!
Kiringai Kamau
On Mon, Nov 19, 2
Question 3 (opens 19 Nov.)
The losses incurred in developing countries are largely due to infrastructural constraints related to poor transport, storage, processing and packaging facilities, in addition to capacity gaps that result in inefficient production, harvesting, processing and transport of food.
These are standard value chain functions. Value chain mapping and identification has been touted as the panacea to all sorts of sustainable development models/perspectives in agriculture. Our experience is that there is need for a physical space to support the introduction of a facility that would engage with actors at commodity or service provision level to address these issues. Where investment is needed, the organizational framework needs to be considered keenly. Read by earlier post
There should be strong government commitment and support for ICT development in the form of policy incentives, increasing levels of investment in ICT R&D projects, accelerated investment in ICT infrastructure and telecommunication facilities, increase manpower development and skills training in ICT.
Most developing countries lack the financial wherewithal to support basic necessities. On a priotized ranking, ICT will come very low. The challenge is not to expect much from the government but p[ropose a PPP that supports the infusion of what the government can supply with what the communities are able to do on their own including mobilizing investment.
Public sectors should support ICT to:
I would propose that these functions be dealt by PPPs rather than the Public Sector (Government) with the government playing the role that they can be encouraged to play with the most critical being the provision of infrastructure or to link with global partners such as ITU on issues of telecommunication.
(1) Reinforce producers in achieving economic, social and ecological sustainability to increase productivity and improve quality;
Policies on quality standards need to be introduced through focused extension support through industrial, academic, productive, agronomical, social frameworks
(2) Support better terms of trade and organize access to financial services;
Vibrant financial sector with government setting up such funds as can promote affordable credit for smallholders and other producers
(3) Develop a range of instruments for training, quality management financing, exchange of experience, management, efficiency and sales;
Action research initiatives that integrate the community and private sector need to provide the handles for this. There is a risk here of making the government swallow more than it can chew!
(4) Increase services used by farmers and other producers;
Action research initiatives that integrate the community and private sector need to provide the handles for this. There is a risk here of making the government swallow more than it can chew!
(5) Link farmers with public support agencies and private sector buyers;
Action research initiatives that integrate the community and private sector need to provide the handles for this. There is a risk here of making the government swallow more than it can chew!
(6) Encourage creation of producer organizations to procure high-quality inputs in bulk to reduce costs;
Civil society and creation of farmer organizations through capacity building of farmers themselves to create this rather than the government doing it
(7) Enhance logistics - public distribution of commodities;
Private sector or farmer organizations’ responsibility
(8) Use producer organizations to establish marketing partnerships with processors and retailers to promote socially beneficial products and create brands;
Farmer organizations themselves backed by private sector or PPP initiatives
(9) Create provisions for credit in conjunction public and private sector lender;
Savings and Credit Cooperatives do a very good job here, let the farmers do it themselves. You risk creating dependency that will be hurtful in the long run
(10) Enhance public R&D and production to develop socially beneficial inputs to production
R&D in agriculture is indeed a public good and the learning and research organizations need to be supported but they should also try and limit over-reliance on governments. Global funds now exist that promote innovation, let the R&D initiatives sell their innovation for supportive initiatives
(11) Enhance extension services or technical assistance to producers in farming practices (training, information dissemination)
This should be participatory as much as possible and be result oriented. Too much free extension has been the cause of slow adoption of technologies and new approaches to value chain engagement
(12) Promote infrastructure development (public infrastructure - roads, storage facilities);
Purely government’s yes but storage is private sector business…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(13) Promote public distribution of commodities - partnerships between public sector and producer groups/NGOs to jointly finance and maintain roads, storage facilities;
Purely private sector business…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(14) Enhance information services development of MIS to integrate government statistics agencies with private producer associations, use of IT to distribute market information;
Purely private sector business…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(15) Develop and enforce public standards and regulations on food safety inspection and monitoring to manage quality and food safety in conjunction with government and producer groups;
Purely government through a responsive standards body with the production infrastructure being private sector/Producer organization owned…see the model I circulated on farmer organization modeling at VACID Africa
(16) Develop coordination mechanisms to ensure healthy competition and market exchanges.
Let the government meddle in what should be purely market forces….there may be exceptions depending on how organized the markets are
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:00 AM, <[email protected]> wro
Forum Forum: "ICT for Data Collection, Monitoring and Evaluation" June, 2012
Question 1: ICTs for collecting agricultural, socio-economic, or M&E data (Open 11 June)
Our technologies are available at www.octagon.co.ke and we create value chain linked efforts through community aggregation centres that are based in farmer organized produce centres. I had to go back to school and change my area of focus from ICT to agriculture, with a focus on agricultural extension through formation of collectives.
The data is captured using digital scales that are initially fed with farmer records at the farmer collective's computer. Farmer records only contain names and their numbers, nothing on produce data. When the collection process starts the scale weighs the produce, the weigh it captured and stored on the scale, display of the weighment is displayed on a remote display, a receipt is printed for farmer record---which is not necessary but is needed to create confidence, the scale is delivered to the office to download the data, which could be relayed to the collective action's computers/servers on GPRS/GSM, but due to infrastructure constraints in WiMax communication we provide for the duo benefit of using the data download from the scale. The data is aggregated per month and payment done in like manner.
It creates confidence, promotes creation of collectives and investment among smallholder farmers. We have seen farmers who never had an income earn as much as $200 a month and the direct employment generation at the particularly collective now stands at 600 with an MBA as a manager of the collective. We now promote the use of the technology in all sectors and are now taking its operations to any field data capture work.
Our software to manage the data from the scales has now evolved to become an ERP (almost)...
The foregoing can be used in any M&E set-up and can be integrated into any cloud solution, not necessarily onto our own emerging ERP.
We are not spending more time creating farmer organization and training programmes on the same as you can see at http://rural-agriculture.wikispaces.com
Join us and create an Aquaculture, Value Addition, Agribusiness and Knowledge (AVAAK) Centre for which we are busy building a community of practise around what people are doing.
You are invited to be part of our growing network...
On Mon,
Forum Forum: "Using ICT to enable Agricultural Innovation Systems for smallholders" September, 2012
Question 2 (opens 19 Sept.)
Too much focus has been given to mobile solutions which assume that the infrastructure, knowledge and the ability to navigate through the web of products and services will be easy and possible for farmers.
Pro-programmed queries whose response is a short message text could provide the kind of online solution that is needed so that farmers whose eyesight is running off with age can make use of the miniature technologies. If mobile solutions are not the option, then a telecentre infrastructure may be called upon to bridge the gap.
In my view and as noted here, the challenge is:
- Who will identify the challenges that may pull the farmers to technologically driven information sources?
- Who will create interest in the farmers so that they can pursue digital knowledge?
- At what layer of a commodity chain should digital technology be used for farmer reference?
- What followup mechanism ensures that the farmer uses the technology knowledge disseminated?
KiringaiOn W
Question 1 (opens 17 Sept.)
Given the plethora of support organizations, this initiative needs to be driven by a focus on sustainability...what measure of this is integrated into the implementation?
Kiringai
On Mon,