Diverting fertilizer meant for smallholder farmers by market forces has been major source of smallholder agricultural failure in sub-sahara west Africa, particularly in Northern Nigeria. Thanks to the apparition of ICT devices notably mobile phone and iPad. In a recent episode in Kano state where government revived a local public fertilizer (NPK) blending company (KASCO) that is in full production now. Priority is given to supplying smallholder farmers in the state's numerous local government areas with the fertilizer at 62% subsidy. But the critical factor is ensuring that intended vulnerable smallholder farmers really get the fertilizer consignment intended for them.

The fertilizer factory locates in the state headquarter (Kano) and delivery is made to community wards across the state where some wards are up to one hour journey from Kano. Serveral monitoring measures have been employed including trailer escort from the factory; delivery feedback note, public radio announcement regarding despatch and collector from the factory on daily basis. Almost half way through supplying the 484 wards each with a trailer fertilizer load for the smallholder farmers, a mobile phone call communicated fertilizer illigal deal in one of the wards. The phone reported illigal sales of the fertilizer at a market stall not intended originally for off loading the consignment.

The mobile alert went straight to the local police station that later on report to the supply source. The critical point of the mobile significance is the point where official monitoring of the fertilizer ended with off-loading with properly signed delivery feed note (DFN). iPad imaging of the affected fertilizer and the market stall completed the full story for reporting to the higher authorities for correction. It appears that within the remote smallholder local ICT context, mobile phone and iPad duo holds significant promises for simple yet effective means of achieving inputs distribution monitoring for improved smallholder farmers livelihoods.

[quote="michaelriggs"] Dear all, I thank you for participating in and contributing to this online forum about the role of ICT in Agricultural Value Chains. Today (18 Dec.) is the last official day of the forum. We encourage you to make any last comments you might have in the forum now. The forum will remain open for additional comments in the future as well as for your reference. Next week work will begin on a final summary/overview of the forum. We will also prepare a new section under Key Topics to consolidate the many useful references contributed during the forum in one easy to find location. This should be ready sometime in January, and will be announced in the next e-Agriculture newsletter. We hope that you will give us about 10 minutes of your time to complete an anonymous survey on the forum. It is just 8 questions and can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DBSTDBZ This will help us to improve future e-Agriculture events like this. Wishing you very happy holidays. We look forward to seeing you here with e-Agriculture in the New Year! [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] Thank you all facilitators for the effort. I sincerely hope that post-forum activities would go beyond the newsletter, with effective outreach to policy makers especially in disadvantaged domains for the benefit of rural people that are currently in 'closed' development environment. Donor intervention is most reliable if it goes through community associations rather than the public sector. In any case, it has been forum worth participating as I discovered some actors operating similar approach in different country for same effect and already we are networking for more improvement. I am very glad that I participated. Thank you all and HAPPY CHRISTMAS in advance. God bless. :D

[quote="michaelriggs"] [quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] what value or role do good practices and case studies on this topic have in our work? [/quote] Does anyone have a thought to share on this question? Even to suggest that is it not important enough to discuss? :) Many of us in regional and international organizations have felt for several years now that part of the problem in the ICT for development field is a lack of comprehensive, rigorous review of ICT projects and programmes that are presented in a way that they become learning tools for other practitioners. The output being good practices, models, case studies, etc. Is there really value in this process, particularly considering the impact of ICT on agricultural value chains and farmers? Or maybe we could do something better? [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] Hi Michael, many variables between YOUR work and the real work on local grounds exist. Different situations, different objectives, different expected outcomes. Perhaps coming across good practices, models and case studies do come as coincidents in your work, but still the set objective of your work overides the significance of the local approach. Harmonizing these issues for a better development approach could be impossible since ICT technology changes every miniute thereby rendering best practive of the moment irrelevant the following day before policy change is affected. Certainly there is value, but is dynamic and short lived. I hope I understand the question anyway!

[quote="sapnaaroranarula"] Dear all, Here , i would like to lead the discussion to the following important points: what is the role of private sector in spread of ICTs in agri-value chain? What kind of private companies can play part in these activities? What kind of activities can be undertaken by public sector?or the role of public sector will be limited to funding? the possible PPP mode of partenership for strengthening agrivalue chain through ICTs is also important, how? Your comments/ suggestions/examples from your own countries are welcome. Sapna [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] Dear Sapna, your question hinges on patriotism (public sector), commerce (private sector) and relevance (agriculture) all in the driving seat. The destination (benefit to each) depends on time and virtual condition of the terrain (governance). However, there are three levels of approach in my opinion Level [1] Public sector to provide conducive policy frame work that is in line with global ICT trend for local agriculture development. The sector should also provide critical infrastructure and service to reduce inflation of ICT charges for rural application. Typical examples: (a) In Nigeria where electricity is unreliable, mphone firms operate independent power generation which translate to mphone users paying for airtime and power generation simultaneously. (b) Public sector should also provide service antennas deep in rural areas to attract ICT firms for rural connectivity. Again, in a study I conducted on rural connectivity for contactivity I came across "digital isolation' and digital vacuum' where a commercial mphone call provider uses make shift wire antenna erected on wood bar to enhance connectivity. Full version (pdf) of the study available from [email protected] Level [2] Private sector should suspend discriminating against undeveloped investment potential of rural agriculture by making ICT plan on the drawing board that generally covers rural areas since ICT is now considered undisputable opener of the "closed development bottle'. Level [3] Public private partnership (PPP) Public, private and community (farmer groups) sector's benefit must be clearly drawn and well understood by all for the partnership to serve any purpose. Public sector investment in the private sector circle should target to directly improve rural agriculture. So private sector ICT function in rural areas should identify and comply with dynamic public sector policies for rural agric development. Farmers groups are expected to become highly organized, cooperative and with team work spirit in the PPP. The bottom line is for the private sector to re-align its ICT profit drive to give chance to rural agriculture to take shape at least in the immediate and short tem periods while the public sector continues with favourable policy support. A related more specific question to the forum: What ICT-based approach do we need to adopt to address unfavourable cross-border activities by customs and security agents on farm produce marketing that falls within the provisions of regional agreements?

[quote="charmasiello"] [quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] Question 4 (10 Dec.) What are the real drivers of success for the use of ICT (in value chains) in rural areas? What challenges are faced in these situations? [/quote] There are some very useful examples of resources/activities underway in this question 4 from members comments. I encourage those who have examples to also submit them to the Resources Section. They can be used as illustrations in the final report of the Forum. Best, Charlotte [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] Charlotte, just responding to your question about whether farmers were trained in the rural digital bridge system and how I gained thier cooperation. You see, only the local contact need to be trained for effective communication between farmers and the rural digital coordinator. About farmers cooperation, you see my farmers face annual post-harvest loss up to 40% on fresh vegetables due to market glut brought by lack of information and strategic planning. Because of this recurring losses every year, affected farmers want MONEY and anything that comes with a hint to improve thier income especially MONEY they are keen with tremendous willing to cooperate, in terms of commercial farm extension local farmers here are distant with the public sector. Moreover, exhibited ICT power to the farmers makes them highly inquisitive.

[quote="charmasiello"] [quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] Question 4 (10 Dec.) What are the real drivers of success for the use of ICT (in value chains) in rural areas? What challenges are faced in these situations? [/quote] There are some very useful examples of resources/activities underway in this question 4 from members comments. I encourage those who have examples to also submit them to the Resources Section. They can be used as illustrations in the final report of the Forum. Best, Charlotte [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] Hi Charlotte, OK will send an overview of my recent response in focus but already I sent a master project doc (pdf) to [email protected], I hope that will serve a purpose because I had big problem to get that through and wouldn't fancy to repeat the process again. Kind regards

[quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] Question 4 (10 Dec.) What are the real drivers of success for the use of ICT (in value chains) in rural areas? What challenges are faced in these situations? [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] Hi Lisa, it all depends on local situations you now, but here in Kano State Nigeria, the list is endless, one can only prioritize as follows: a) access to information b) poverty (device affordability) c) formal organization of the sector d) partnership synergy (public/private) e) choice of ICT devices for particular situation f) knowledge of the ICT potentials and diversity g) system reliability (technology, operation environment etc) h) state policy i) collaboration and participation Challenges faced include ignorance, monopoly, informal transaction, lack of transparacy, thriving subsistence farming, food insecurity and poor income generation. If access to information is effectively addressed via ICT various device arrangement, the rural farmer will be attracted to the magic of ICT there by bringing out his will to cooperate to open up about local situation for external collaboration and participation. Typical example is the Rural Digital Bridge (RDB) that I designed and implement with local farmers, it improved farmers access to the Internet through Mobile phone and traditional methods of communiction within local communities. This led to strategic commodity development through trial plots conducted by farmers on thier fields which eventually addressed the issue of post-harvest waste and improved market prices of the affected commodity. The key actors (the RDB coordinator, private firms dealing with the commodity and the farmers) were several kilometers away from each other but were fully coodinated using the ICT customized arrangement.

[quote="Lisa-Cespedes"] Question 3 (9 Dec.) What potential downsides (negative impacts) might be experienced when ICT is used in the agricultural value chain? How can we guard against the downsides? [/quote="Rabiu Yakasai"] In developing countries where non-farmer stakeholders in the value chains especially middlemen become fully acquainted with ICT potentials, digitally divided farmers stand the danger of been ripped-off. For example, two different produce prices may exist, one for the farmer and the other for the middlemen ICT users since the farmer is isolated from the ICT-based transaction. The same is possible for farm input deals to the farmer. In essence, all category of farmers especially digitally divided ones must be fully carried on board with respect to ICT deployment in the agriculture value chains. This implies ensuring ICT proficiency among the vulnerable farm producers to guard against the downsides.

[quote="flaureys"] [quote="RAY"] This is an overview, full details contained in a document (pdf) sent to [email protected] earlier on Kind regards Rabiu Yakasai [/quote] Hi Rabiu, Very interesting article - the RDB resembles very much the pilot project we are currently supporting in Leo in Burkina Faso with the farmers' federation FEPPASI. In fact, it is feasible to create highly connected 'hubs' in rural areas that can then pass on vital information to low connected areas/people via other tools. Our experience is that such a hub 'within' a community (e.g. a farmers' organization) performs much better than a 'generalist' telecentre. I can't find the pdf you refer to... [/quote="Rabiu Yaasai"] Hello flaureys Great to hear that and look forward to sharing more ideas especially when you go through the pdf doc that I am sending to the resource section immediately

Hello everybody, The name is Rabiu Auwalu Yakasai, farmers' consultant working on commercial agriculture with Kura Smallholder Farmers' Cooperative Society, Kano State Nigeria. Operation base is Kano River Irrigation Project (KRIP), over 22,000 hectares of surface irrigation structured into smallholder plots that belong to individual farmers for vegetables and rice production. In the struggle to assist the farmers to over come challenges of lack of commercial farm extension; lack of quality farm inputs from reputable sources, poor quality produce, up to 40% post harvest losses of perishable produce, poor market price etc, amid the ICT global trend, I designed an ICT-based approach of communicating Internet information in utilizable format to the farmers. Called the RURAL DIGITAL BRIDGE (RDB); the aim is to expose smallholder farm producers to universal sources of required information that has potential to improve their occupation. RDB is an outcome of study I conducted in two major agricultural production areas on smallholder farmers' connectivity for contactivity. Tangible results of pilot RDB activities include farmer participatory processing tomato variety trial and improvement of Moringa Oleifera value chains in Nigeria. RDB abstract attached herewith and full version of the study (A Study of Rural Internet Connectivity Situation To Guide Strategies for Access to Internet Information by Smallholder Farmers In Rural Kano State, Nigeria -pdf) sent to [email protected] I look forward to share and learn more ideas from the forum.