assessment of mobile technology for front line extension agents - … · the capacity of farmer...

Assessment of mobile technology for

front line extension agents

Draft

11th August 2016

Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 5

Report ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6

1 Objective of the assessment........................................................................................................ 7

2 Methodology and work programme ............................................................................................. 7

2.1 Key topics and conceptual framework.............................................................................................. 7

2.2 Methods and work programme ......................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Limitations of the assessment .......................................................................................................... 9

3 Discussion and findings ............................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Twigire Muhinzi system, roles of FPs and FFS Facilitators ........................................................... 10

3.2 Agricultural sector monitoring and reporting (local government) ................................................... 12

3.3 Use of databases, MIS ................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Existing networks, technologies and equipment used ................................................................... 13

3.5 Considerations for the purchase of mobile phones ........................................................................ 14

4 Conclusions and options ............................................................................................................ 17

4.1 Summary of analysis ...................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 18

4.3 Options for mobile phone use and cost implications ...................................................................... 18

Annexes .................................................................................................................................. 21

Annex 1 People interviewed .................................................................................................................... 21

Tables

Table 1 - Areas visited .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 - Imihigo indicators reported .................................................................................................................. 12 Table 3 - Comparative advantages J2ME and light browser ............................................................................. 16 Table 4 - Network standards and speed ............................................................................................................ 16 Table 5 - Cost implications of different options (in million RWFs)...................................................................... 20

Figures

Figure 1 - Conceptual framework ......................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 - Twigire Muhinzi structure at local level .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 3 - Example of TEXT IT ........................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4 - Twigire Muhinzi communication system ............................................................................................ 11


Disclaimer

The British Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) financed this work as part of the United Kingdom’s aid programme. However, the views and recommendations contained in this report are those of the consultant, and DFID is not responsible for, or bound by the recommendations made.

Lead Author: QA’d, in whole or in part, by:


Acronyms & Abbreviations

Agri-TAF Agriculture Technical Assistance Facility

ASIP Agriculture Sector Investment Plan

CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centres

DFA District Fertiliser Agent

FFS Farmer Field School

FP Farmer Promoter

GIS Geographic Information System

GPRS General Packet Radio Service

J2ME Java 2 Micro Edition

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources

MINALOC Ministry of Local Government

MINIRENA Ministry of Natural Resources

MINISANTE Ministry of Health

MIS Management Information System

NAEB National Agricultural Export Development Board

PSTA Transformation of Agricultiure Sector Programme

PSTA3 Permanent Secretary

RAB RwandaAgriculture Board

RWF Rwandan Franc

SMS Short Message Service

ToR Terms of Reference

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USSD Unstructured Supplementary Service Datas

VHW Village Health Worker


Executive Summary

The European Union (EU) earmarked some funds for the purchase of mobile phones for frontline extension

agents, particularly Farmer Promoters (FPs) and Farmer Field School Facilitators (FFS Facilitators) who are

supported through the Twigire Muhinzi extension programme. The Ministry of Agriculture and Animal

Resources (MINAGRI) requested the Agriculture Technical Assistance Facility (Agri-TAF) to assess the

feasibility, the capacity of frontline extension agents to use mobile technology, and the required technical

specifications.

The assessment was undertaken in July 2016 and was based on the review of existing information, and

interviews with key informants in Kigali and in 5 Districts, 8 Sectors, 17 Cells, and 23 Villages in all provinces.

As the expected use of the mobile phones was related to improved reporting and communication, the study

also assessed the existing reporting and communication systems at local level and in Twigire Muhinzi system.

With respect to agricultural sector reporting, the assessment found that there is need for improved monitoring

and further systematisation at all levels through the use of uniform reporting templates and improved

processing. With respect to communication, the Twigire Muhinzi programme already includes a 2-way SMS

system and a hotline. However, the field assessment did not confirm active use of these facilities by FPs, FFS

Facilitators and field staff.

Given the prevailing technical conditions in most rural areas (i.e. electricity, network coverage), the education

level of FPs, and available budget, the provision of simple or basic feature phones to Farmer Promoters would

be the most feasible option. The capacity of Farmer Field School Facilitators (FFS Facilitators) is higher and

the use of more sophisticated phones could be considered, depending on the expected use.

As the Social Economic Development Officers (SEDOs and Sector Agronomists and Sector Veterinarians play

a key role in coordinating the extension activities and reporting at village, cell and sector levels, it is highly

recommended to provide them with mobile phones (preferable smart phones) or tablets.

Various options for use of mobile phones by FPs, FFS Facilitators and field staff exist that include (i) some

basic routine reporting, (ii) reporting on emergency issues and diseases, for example through the use of

photographs, and (iii) communication activities that could include closed user groups, WhatsApp groups,

hotline and free toll SMS. The report concludes that before the mobile phones are purchased, further analysis

is needed on the intended use for reporting and/or communication, and on the type of system/technology that

will be implemented. Some suggestions are provided in the last section of the report.

A cost estimate is provided for various options for the purchase of phones (table 5), ranging from 270,000 to

584,000 euros. The preferred option would be to supply the FPs with simple phones, FFS Facilitators with

mid-range feature phones that allow some basic internet browsing, WhatsApp functions and taking

photographs, and smart phones to SEDOs Sector Agronomists and Sector Veterinarians. However, additional

costs for operation and maintenance will have to be considered. Without MINAGRI providing airtime for calling

and data exchange the purchase of mobile phones will not be feasible.

Based on the experiences of the Twigire Muhinzi 2-way SMS and hotline systems, as well as the MINISANTE

Rapid SMS, it is recommended to pilot test the system before deploying it country wide and to establish a

thorough training programme.


Report

Introduction

The European Union (EU) has supported the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) with

the establishment of a Management Information System (MIS), which focuses on the monitoring of the

PSTA3/ASIP2 and Imihigo indicators. The system is currently being tested, initial training has started and the

MIS will officially be launched in August 2016.

At the request of MINAGRI, the EU has earmarked some funds for the purchase of mobile phones for frontline

extension agents, particularly Farmer Promoters (FPs) and Farmer Field School (FFS) Facilitators who are

supported through the Twigire Muhinzi extension programme, implemented by the Ministry of Local

Government (MINALOC) and MINAGRI.

However, before the mobile phones are procured, further information is required on the capacity of the FPs

and FFS Facilitators to use mobile technology, the most suitable platform to be used and the required

technical specifications. In addition, the training needs and the follow-up activities will have to be determined,

with respect to the system’s set-up (or development) and management.

MINAGRI requested the Agriculture Technical Assistance Facility (Agri-TAF), a DFID funded four-year

programme to conduct the assessment. The Agri-TAF facility provides support to MINAGRI and to a lesser

extent its affiliated agencies and other Government departments involved in the delivery of PSTA3. The

assessment is undertaken under Agri-TAF’s Work stream 1, which focuses on strengthening the MIS capacity

and related conceptual aspects of planning and monitoring and evaluation.

Although no Terms of Reference (ToR) were provided, the team was initially informed that the main purpose

of the mobile phones was to facilitate the reporting process from the field, providing relevant information from

farmer level in an efficient manner, and possibly integrate the information into the MIS. However, during the

assessment the Permanent Secretary (PS) highlighted the importance of using the mobile phones for

communication purposes, i.e. facilitating the provision of information to farmers, as well as providing a facility

for farmers to obtain information through a call centre or hotline.

As the initial focus was put on monitoring and reporting, the survey reviewed the current data collection and

reporting processes, as well as the data requirements in order to assess the feasibility of mobile solutions to

address the information needs. Although the exercise primarily focused on FPs and FFS Facilitators, the

assessment also looked at the monitoring and reporting systems used by government staff at decentralised

levels, i.e. cell, sector and district level.


1 Objective of the assessment

The main objective of the assessment is to enable MINAGRI to provide an informed request to the EU for

support in the procurement of the most efficient and effective mobile technology for use by frontline extension

agents, particularly Farmer Promoters and FFS Facilitators.

A secondary objective was to obtain information on the current communication, monitoring and report ing

processes and systems at decentralised level with a view to support government with the development and

implementation of improved systems, which is one of the key focus areas of Agri-TAF Workstream 1. This is

closely related to the main objective of this assessment as the frontline extension agents are an integral part

of the communication and reporting systems.

2 Methodology and work programme

2.1 Key topics and conceptual framework

In order to assess the appropriate technology for communication, monitoring and reporting by FPs and FFS

Facilitators, a number of aspects were considered, as summarised in figure 1.

Figure 1 - Conceptual framework

First, the role of FPs and FFS Facilitators and the type of monitoring and communication that is undertaken in

the Twigire Muhinzi system is analysed.

Second, the overall sector monitoring and reporting systems are reviewed, of which the FPs and FFS

Facilitators form part. An understanding of the main processes, requirements, and issues, especially at

district, sector and cell levels is necessary to put the use of mobile phones for communication and reporting

into context1.

1 In the context of this assessment only the systems of a few districts could be reviewed. A more thorough assessment of existing systems at the various administrative levels will have to be undertaken by Agri-TAF.


Third, the used data storage and processing methods are analysed. If mobile phones are supplied, the

possible linkage and integration of the reported data to a central database or MIS have to be determined.

Fourth, the technological conditions are analysed. The existing networks in the villages, and the availability of

electricity will largely determine the possible technical solutions.

After a better understanding of the monitoring, reporting and communication needs, an analysis of the

capacity of the FPs, FFS Facilitators and other actors as well as the technical considerations for various

options can be undertaken. Also the experiences and lessons learnt of RAB (TEXT IT SMS, hotline) and other

projects, such as the Health MIS are taken into consideration.

2.2 Methods and work programme

The assessment was undertaken by Henk Remme (Lead MIS Agri-TAF) and Jules Kazungu (M&E Manager

Agri-TAF) over a period of 12 days in July and was based on the review of existing information (desk work),

and interviews with key informants (see Annex 1).

The desk work included (i) a review of main materials of the Twigire Muhinzi extension programme,

particularly the baseline on Farmer Promoters, (ii) a review of the DHIS2 mobile support facilities and

experiences in Rwanda and other countries, and (iii) other relevant documentation.

At national level, interviews were held with various key informants and institutions, including:

Administrators of the Health MIS in the Ministry of Health (MINISANTE);

BTC Rwanda (Twigire Muhinzi-FFS);

RAB officers involved in Twigire Muhinzi and data management: Operations Manager, Innovations

Officer, Fertilizer Officer, Crop production and Extension Specialist;

Project Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator of the USAID/CGIAR project ‘Building climate services

capacity in Rwanda’;

‘M-Farms’ Coordinator;

Team Leader of Results Based M&E project at MINIRENA;

Representative of MTN Network Services.

At Province, District and decentralised levels key informants involved in the Twigire Muhinzi programme

and in extension, monitoring/reporting at various levels were interviewed:

Province/RAB zone: Director of Agriculture Extension North and East (RAB);

District: Director of Agriculture and Natural Resources Unit, Director of Planning and M&E,

Agronomist, Veterinarian, Cash crop Officer, District Fertilizer Agent, Cooperative Officer, Agrodealer

(Cooperative), and FFS Facilitator Cooperative

Sector - Agronomist, Veterinarian, and FP Cooperative Representative

Cell - Social Economic Development Officer (SEDO), Executive Secretary, and FFS Facilitator

Village - FPs, Village Health Workers, and farmers.

In order to get a reasonable representative view, all four provinces were visited: 5 Districts, 8 Sectors (plus

interviews with officers from one other sector), 17 Cells, and 23 Villages. The following areas were visited:


Table 1 - Areas visited

Province District Sector Cell Village

East Ngoma Murama Rurenge Ruvuzi

Gitaraga Rukizi

Mutendeli

Gasozi Gasozi

Mutendeli

Kibaya

Akarimbu

Cyanyoga

Ntonero

North

Musanze

Remera

Murwa

Murwa

Kamanga

Murandi Ruganda

Nyange

Kamwumba Kamicaca

Ninda Nyarubande

Cyivugiza Terimbere

Kabeza Ntamiziro

Kivugiza

Rugarama

Kagoma

West

Nyabihu

Shyira

Kimanzovu Murwato

Mpinga Gacurabwenge

Kanyitana Kazirankora

Rubavu

Rugerero Muhira Gatebe II

Busasamana Rusura Rebero

South

Ruhango

Ntongwe

Kayenzi Kanyeti

Kimero Gasuma

* Sector officers were met outside the sector.

The field work took place in the period 7-19 June 2016.

2.3 Limitations of the assessment

No Terms of Reference or details were provided on the rationale, needs and expected benefits of the mobile

technology. During the assessment it appeared that different views were held on the purpose of the

procurement of mobile phones, ranging from reporting to communication. As no further details on an analysis

of needs and expected benefits could be obtained before the field work was undertaken, the team did not limit

the assessment to the technical aspects and capacity of FPs and FFS Facilitators, but also reviewed the

proposal in the context of the current communication, monitoring and reporting systems at local level.

The time for doing the exercise was limited and only a small sample of FPs and FFS Facilitators could be

interviewed. The study is therefore more of a rapid assessment highlighting some key issues than a

comprehensive survey. However, the team feels that the interviews and visits have provided an adequate

basis for analysis.

Finally, the timing of the assessment coincided with the start of the planning for the agricultural season and

the evaluation of the Imihigo performance contracts. This affected the work in some districts and the plans had

to be adjusted to accommodate the work schedules of field staff in the districts, sectors and cells.


3 Discussion and findings

3.1 Twigire Muhinzi system, roles of FPs and FFS Facilitators

3.1.1 Roles of FPs and FFS Facilitators

The Twigire Muhinzi extension system integrates two approaches.

The FFS Facilitator approach involves a training and participatory research/learning process that focuses on

best agricultural practices of a selected crop. The FFS Facilitators are selected by technicians and go through

an intensive training of 2-3 months in which they learn facilitation skills and agronomic knowledge. The FFS

Facilitators establish FFS plots with selected farmers from Twigire groups to conduct trials on varieties,

fertilizer application, integrated pest management, etc. The FFS group meets weekly. Approximately 2,500

FFS Facilitators are active, distributed over the cells (although not all cells have a FFS Facilitator and others

have more than one). The FFS Facilitators receive a monthly payment for their services of RWF 120,000.

The FP approach is modelled after the MINISANTE Village Health Workers concept, focusing on farmer-to-

farmer extension. The FPs are village based and selected by the community. The FPs receive some training

and extension materials from RAB. They promote the use of good agricultural practices (GAP) and the use of

inputs. FPs play a major role in the mobilisation of farmers, especially with respect to input distribution, and

they facilitate the establishment of Twigire groups, comprising 15-20 farmers. The FP is also responsible for

the management of a demonstration plot, which serves as a learning tool for visiting farmers. Approximately

14,200 FPs are active. They do not receive any payment but get some incentives and also receive a small

percentage of the inputs that are sold to the Twigire group members.

Figure 2 - Twigire Muhinzi structure at local level

The Twigire Muhinzi approach integrates the two extension models. The FFS Facilitator trains and supports

the FP in the establishment of the demonstration plot. In addition, selected members (3-5) of each Twigire

group join the FFS group and work on the FFS plot, as illustrated in figure 2.

Although the two systems are linked, the FFS Facilitator does not act as a supervisor of the FPs in the area.

The two provide quite different services. The FFS Facilitators are experts in one crop and are predominantly

involved in the FFS trial plots. The FPs on the other hand, received only light training and play a major role in

the government input subsidy distribution system. Although their outreach is far wider than that of the FFS

Facilitators, their knowledge and impact on production is more limited. Surveys undertaken by the FFS and FP


programmes show that impact of farmer training on productivity increase by FFS Facilitators is much higher

than that of FPs, respectively 45% and 9-12%. But the number of farmers reached by FFS Facilitators is much

lower.

3.1.2 Communication and reporting

Figure 3 - Example of TEXT IT

The communication and reporting flows are illustrated in figure 4. Monthly

monitoring is done by the SEDO, basically reporting on the number of active

Twigire groups and FFS groups. In addition, mid-season and end of season

assessments are conducted by enumerators or agronomists, using a

checklist of key indicators.

For reporting and communication purposes, a toll-free 2-way SMS system

and hotline have been established, which enable FPs, FFS Facilitators,

SEDOs and Sector Agronomists to communicate directly with Twigire

Muhinzi national coordination at RAB. According to the RAB Innovations

Officer, around 9,400 FP phone numbers are currently included in the

database that is used for the toll-free SMS system (TEXT IT). The numbers

are based on the responses they received from FPs when approached.

Challenges are observed in getting active responses from FPs. This is partly

due to problems encountered at the initial stages of the system, for example

when users were charged for replying to the received messages. In addition,

some of the phone numbers provided might be of other people than FPs,

phones might not be charged or have become dysfunctional. Finally, a major

constraint for use of the system that was mentioned is the lack of proper

training provided to FPs on the use of the TEXT IT system.

Figure 4 - Twigire Muhinzi communication system


3.1.3 Observations from the field

During the field work, no evidence of active use of SMS TEXT IT by interviewed FFS Facilitators, FPs, SEDOs

or Sector Agronomists was found. A few FPs and FFS Facilitators said that they tried it but that the message

did not go or that they were afraid of being charged.

The linkage between the FFS Facilitators and FPs is not strong and is mostly related to the demo plot

establishment. Some FFS groups also include FPs but there is no formal communication or reporting structure

between the two systems. As the FFS system is dependent on payment of FFS Facilitators, with the phasing

out of the BTC support the sustainability might be compromised. During the field visits FFS Facilitators

reported that they were not paid for some time but it is understood that the payment was done at the time of

report writing. The FPs are integrated in the government input distribution system and their role is more likely

to be sustained. However, during the field work many FPs considered the low level of incentives a constraint

for doing the work effectively.

3.2 Agricultural sector monitoring and reporting (local government)

Within the context of this assignment a detailed description of the monitoring and reporting systems is not

possible but the following summarises the main observations from the discussions with officers at cell, sector,

district and province/zone level.

3.2.1 Data reporting systems and flows

Most data collection and reporting systems are related to Imihigo indicators, which are given priority. Table 2

shows the main indicators that are reported on. Most indicators are further disaggregated for the main crops

and the reports also include achievements on the relevant activities, depending on the period of the season.

Monitoring follows the seasonal calendar: land preparation, planting, pest and diseases occurrence, harvested

yields and productivity. The activities and achievements are included in weekly progress reports.

Table 2 - Imihigo indicators reported

Outcome Output Indicator

Agriculture: Increased Agricultural Productivity

Enhanced food security through a sustainable land use and input use

Average yields of priority crops in Consolidated land

% of households using improved seeds on consolidated sites

% of households using organic/inorganic fertiliser on consolidated sites

% of households built the compost for organic fertiliser

Ha of land consolidated on priority crops

Exports and tourism: Increased growth of non-traditional exports by 37% (Pyrethrum, Fruits and vegetables)

Production of Horticulture and Floriculture increased

Number of ha developed

Increased number of ha of banana plantation rehabilitated

Number of ha rehabilitated

Social protection: Increased coverage of the extreme poor and vulnerable.

Joint action plan to eliminate malnutrition implemented.

Number of kitchen garden established and rehabilitated.

The FP Twigire groups play a major role in the planning and monitoring of inputs distribution and use in

consolidated areas. At the beginning of the season, the area to be planted and required quantity of seed and

fertiliser for each farmer of a Twigire group are recorded on a form and submitted to the SEDO, Sector and

District Agronomists, Agrodealer and District Fertiliser Agent. The system is automated through mFarms

Android App. All agrodealers received a smart phone, which enables them to report on their stocks. Although


the App in principle allows the recording of each farmer, in practice the supplied inputs are summarised on a

weekly basis. The agrodealer uses another Twigire group form to report on the inputs supplied to farmers.

Starting from the 2016b season the Reserve Force will play a major role in the input distribution but the

reporting system is not expected to be changed dramatically.

3.2.2 Observations from the field

During the discussions with field staff the following observations were made:

Although the same types of data related to Imihigo indicators are collected, different reporting formats

are used and no uniform system exists across sectors and districts. Some districts have developed

elaborated recording systems, for example Nyabihu, whereas others use a less systematic approach.

Several challenges in recording and reporting from the field were observed, with reporting between

village and cell often done on an oral basis, achievements not being documented and weak overall

record-keeping and filing systems being established. Verification and validation of data appears

inadequately undertaken due to capacity constraints. Methodological issues exist especially with

regards to monitoring of yields and productivity.

Different organisational structures exist at district level. Some districts are organised in agricultural

and natural resources units, combining various agricultural and natural resources- related officers,

which provides a good opportunity for increased integration and coordination. This is important as the

coordination of information collection and use between officers at District level is not strong, for

example, between Agronomists, M&E Officers and Statisticians.

The SEDO plays a key role and provides data for all sectors, including agriculture. As there is only

one person at cell level, the SEDO find it difficult to cope with all the reporting and other requirements.

It was observed that most SEDOs have high capacity and many of the interviewed SEDOs had

Bachelor degrees.

Reports from the villages are often delayed as they depend on data provided by farmers and FPs.

The livestock reporting system appears less clear than the on for agriculture. In addition, as there is

only a veterinarian at sector level, it is difficult to get data from the field.

3.3 Use of databases, MIS

Most data that are processed by local government are recorded in Excel or word processing documents.

Often the reports are sent in hard copy or even hand written. This requires further manual aggregation and

compilation at district level.

The districts develop their own initiatives for data processing. For example, Musanze District is in the process

of developing a mobile application for the recording and processing of some statistical data. In Nyabihu an

elaborated Excel-based “database” is maintained. But in most visited sectors and districts the reports are filed

in folders, organised by Imihigo indicators, i.e. one folder per indicator. The reported data are not put in a

database, which makes it very difficult for officers to access data quickly or do analysis. Also for incoming new

officers it is challenging to see what has been going on in the area. During interviews the requested data were

frequently not found.

The need for a farmer-based database was mentioned by various informants. Apparently some initiative was

already taken by the MINAGRI MIS officer (in May) to design a structure. It would be advisable to coordinate

with Agri-TAF to see how this can be integrated into the MIS, rather than developing a separate system.

3.4 Existing networks, technologies and equipment used

In most visited villages electricity is available but it is understood that overall coverage in Rwanda is still

relatively low with many rural or remote areas not having access to power yet.

The mobile networks in rural areas are usually of low standard (E) whereas in the centres better connections

are found (3G up to H+) - see also section 3.5.4. This is a constraint for the use of internet based solutions or

mobile Apps that need higher standard networks.


Computers and laptops have been provided to field staff at district, sector and cell level (SEDOs) but

apparently not much maintenance is done and the assessment team observed that several of the computers

and printers were not working. In addition, some of the sector and district agronomists have PCs instead of

laptops, which forces them to work on reporting in the office only.

The use of cell phones is limited, although some WhatsApp groups do exist. Some agronomists and SEDOs

have been provided with Android phones. And in pilot districts FPs were provided with simple feature phones.

3.5 Considerations for the purchase of mobile phones

3.5.1 4.5.1 Types of phones

Three types of mobile phones can be distinguished (although in reality the differences are gradual):

Smart phones (Android, OS, Windows) – sophisticated phones that enable internet browsing, using

Apps and various other functions;

Feature phones – cheaper phones that enable some basic internet browsing, and social media

functions such as WhatsApp;

Simple phones – small phones with limited functionality, basically calling and SMS.

Most of the phones used by farmers fall in the latter two categories and even some of the simplest phones

these days enable some limited internet functions. Although a feature phone is a low-end device and a

smartphone a high-end one, there is no standard way of distinguishing them. Over time the capabilities of new

models of feature phones can increase to exceed those of phones that had been promoted as smartphones in

the past. Because technology changes rapidly, what was a smartphone ten years ago may be considered only

a feature phone today.

The choice of phones to be purchased depend on the following considerations:

Purpose and user requirements;

Capacity of the users;

Technical considerations;

Support and maintenance requirements;

Budget/cost limitations.

3.5.2 Purpose and user requirements

Purpose

The intended purpose of the purchase of mobile phones was not clearly defined prior to the assessment but

the main ideas were related to supporting improved reporting from the field and direct two-way communication

with farmers (informing them on relevant activities and providing answers to their queries through a hotline or

call centre). The two functions (reporting and communication) do not necessarily determine the type of phones

needed as both can be based on simple or more advanced technologies.

The other question is for whom should the phones be purchased? Initially, it was meant for FPs and FFS

Facilitators, but based on the analysis above, the support to other field staff, such as SEDOs and sector

agronomists might be considered as well.

Advantages and possible use of phones suggested by key informants

Interviewed Field staff, FPs and FFS Facilitators mentioned the following advantages of using mobile phone

technology:

Reporting on activity/input monitoring and results:

FPs: demo plot visits and Twigire groups established – farmer mobilisation, input

requirements and distribution, and planting;

FFS Facilitators: FFS plot activities;


Both: yields and productivity (but how reliable would the data be?)

Reporting on issues, emergency problems:

Sending photo’s to agronomists or FFS Facilitators, for example on crop diseases or stages

of crop production. If well set up, diseases reporting could be linked to a database and GIS,

showing area coverage and need for rapid response.

Communication:

Asking experts for advice on specific issues;

Sharing of info, peer-to-peer advice, information on events etc. for example through

WhatsApp groups, or closed user groups for toll free calling and SMS between group

members;

Receiving information from Twigire Muhinzi programme, or from district, sector or cell officers.

3.5.3 Capacity

The capacity of FFS Facilitators, who are selected by agronomists using various criteria, is higher than that of

FPs who are elected by communities, based on their farming skills. A baseline study undertaken in the 2014b

season shows that most FPs (78%) have completed primary education and can read and write, while 21%

completed secondary education. This was confirmed during the field visits. FPs passed our test to reply to

SMS but it could take a long time. Although no data on FFS Facilitator education levels could be obtained,

they are expected to be higher educated, which was confirmed in our small sample. Some FFS Facilitators

already use a feature or smart phone.

Most informants consider that FPs can be trained in using SMS-based or even Smart phone/Apps-services,

but the baseline concludes that training materials for FPs must target a very basic level of education and

literacy. This means that the use of smart phones (even if the budget would allow) for FPs would not be

considered a suitable solution.

3.5.4 Technical considerations

Integration in MIS

Especially if reporting functions are considered, the integration into the MIS database would be useful. The

following technological options exist for reporting functions through these phones taking into consideration the

DHIS2 platform:

Smart phones:

Android client smart phone App - supports offline data entry using HTML5 and is very

responsive.

Smart phone web application (full browser) - platform independent, HTML5 allows some off-

line data storage.

Feature phones that enable some basic internet browsing or WhatsApp (see table 3):

Java client - Java 2 Micro Edition (J2ME) supporting simple online or offline data entry and

submission of forms using mobile data (GPRS) or SMS.

Light web application - light browser-based data entry through a simple mobile interface

optimized for small screen sizes.

Simpler phones:

SMS-based (or USSD code) solutions. No internet required but limited functionality.

Obviously, the Android App or full browser provides the best technological options but they require a smart

phone (or tablet) and are also more demanding with respect to the capacity of the user.

http://apps.dhis2.org/demo/light/index.action

http://apps.dhis2.org/demo/light/index.action


Table 3 - Comparative advantages J2ME and light browser

Currently, MINISANTE uses Rapid SMS, which is a USSD-based system (comparable with checking your

balance on your mobile phone - the user has to enter * followed by a short number and then a #). The Village

Health Workers use a coding system to enter basic information on pregnancies and child diseases. The

system is less user friendly and more restricted than the open-ended SMS systems such as TEXT IT, but can

be easier integrated into a database/MIS.

Network standard and coverage

The network standards and mobile coverage largely determine the options (table 4). Most visited villages have

E (Edge standard), which can be considered 2.5G. This is on the low side and does not enable full internet

browsing. At most WhatsApp can be used. Some of the more remote rural areas do not have any network at

all. In the district towns usually better networks are available (3G up to H+).

Table 4 - Network standards and speed

Symbol Standard Max download speed* Max upload speed*

2G GSM 14.4 Kbit/s 14.4 Kbit/s

G GPRS 53.6 Kbit/s 26.8 Kbit/s

E EDGE 217.6 Kbit/s 108.8 Kbit/s

3G UMTS 384 Kbit/s 128 Kbit/s

H HSPA 7.2 Mbit/s 3.6 Mbit/s

H+ (release 6) HSPA+ 14.4 Mbit/s 5.76 Mbit/s

H+ (release10) HSPA+ 168.8 Mbit/s 23 Mbit/s

4G LTE 100 Mbit/s 50 Mbit/s

4G LTE-A 1 Gbit/s 100 Mbit/s

* Theoretical

Electricity and battery use

The availability of electricity and regular power supply are important factors to take into consideration.

Whereas simple phones can be used 6-8 days without power, smart phone batteries need to be charged

every day. Given the low electricity coverage in the rural areas, simple (feature) phones would be the

preferred option.

Robustness, performance and memory

Simple phones are more robust and less dependent on changing internet/App technologies. Smart phones get

faster outdated due to increasing performance requirements and are less robust. Phones with keypads are

easier to handle than those with touch screens. On the other hand, how extensible and future proof should the

phones be? Should we enable forward compatibility to make sure that phones can still perform in few years’

time to come?

3.5.5 Budget/cost limitations and support and maintenance requirements

The available budget largely defines what types of phones can be purchased. The procurement of smart

phones for 14,200 FPs is simply not feasible given the indicative budget of maximum 550,000 Euros.

A survey of prices of mobile phones in some of the main telecom shops in Kigali shows the following:

The simplest phones range from RWF 7,000 (for example Tigo it2110) to RWF 30,000. A reasonably

good phone (for example Samsung B310E) costs RWF 20,000.

J2ME Application advantages Light Browser advantages

Faster response Simpler to update

Better in low coverage area Simpler to deploy (no application)

Off-line capability More compatible across handsets

Can use GPRS or SMS

Less data traffic


Feature/basic smart phone with camera, social media features (WhatsApp, Facebook etc.) and basic

internet browsing start from RWF 36,000, for example Tecno Y2.

Better Android Smart phones start from RWF 80,000.

The technical specifications also have an impact on the required support and maintenance services. We can

give people phones but then what? Do we also give them airtime? Do we allow people also to use it for

personal use? Can we dictate the choice of operators? If we use different providers, do we require different

SMS codes? We have to determine the management and maintenance requirements, especially regarding the

cost implications. The more complicated the system the costlier the maintenance (which is not covered by the

EU budget for the procurement of mobile phones).

4 Conclusions and options

4.1 Summary of analysis

The decision to buy mobile phones for village level front line extension agents was taken before a clear

assessment of needs and options was conducted. Without knowing the exact purpose and intended use of the

phones it is difficult to provide detailed recommendations on the technical solutions. Two uses of the mobile

phones have been mentioned, i.e. to facilitate reporting and enhance communication. But depending on the

needs, possibly with the same budget other solutions could be more effective, for example providing support

to local government field staff. In order to assist with this analysis some options are suggested in the last

section of this chapter.

With respect to agricultural sector reporting system, the assessment shows that there is need for further

systematisation at all levels through the use of uniform reporting templates and improved processing. For

input distribution there is a well-established reporting system, based on Twigire groups but there is an

opportunity for further automation of the system. A farmer-level database would greatly facilitate the

monitoring of inputs use and outputs, but would require adequate resources for data recording. The

establishment of such system can be further discussed with respect to the work undertaken on the MIS. In

addition, there is need for improvements of the overall M&E system, which will be further analysed and

supported by Agri-TAF.

With respect to communication, the Twigire Muhinzi programme already includes a 2-way SMS system and a

hotline. However, the field assessment did not confirm active use of these facilities by FPs, FFS Facilitators

and field staff. The experience shows that adequate training of front line extension agents is important, as well

as pilot testing of the system to ensure that it works well after deployment.

Different options exist for the use of mobile phones for reporting and communication by front line extension

agents, ranging from simple calling or SMS-based exchange to the use of smart phone Apps that are fully

integrated into the MIS. During the field work many interviewees stressed the importance of being able to

send photographs for (emergency) reporting and exchange purposes.

In terms of institutional aspects, the following observations are made:

The SEDOs play a main role in the reporting and communication process and are the key persons at

cell level. They are well educated.

The linkage of RAB and NAEB with the local government reporting system could be further

strengthened.

The establishment of agricultural and natural resources units, combining various agricultural and

natural resources- related officers, provides a good opportunity for increased integration and

coordination of activities, communication (for example through closed user groups or WhatsApp

groups) and reporting2.

2 In that sense it will also be important to coordinate the development of the MIS of the agricultural sector with the initiatives undertaken by MINIRENA (which is also based on the DHIS2 platform).


With respect to the Twigire Muhinzi system, the linkages between the FFS Facilitators and FPs are

not very strong and there is need for a national coordinator.

4.2 Conclusions

1. Before the mobile phones are purchased, further analysis is needed on the intended use for reporting

and/or communication and the type of system/technology that will be implemented. Support and time are

needed for the development of mobile systems (and possible integration in the MIS). In addition, a cost

analysis should be undertaken on the operations and system maintenance. Without providing airtime or

payment for data use the provision of mobile phones is not feasible. There might also be a need for

putting conditional ties for farmers to avoid them selling mobile phones or using it for unintended use.

2. Given the prevailing technical conditions in most rural areas (i.e. electricity, network coverage), the

education level of FPs, and available budget, the provision of simple or basic feature phones to FPs would

be the most feasible option. Hence, the reporting and communication systems should be relatively simple

and support calling or SMS-based functions. However, most FPS already have simple phones and the

added value of supplying them with new phones should be assessed against other options.

3. The capacity of FFS Facilitators is higher than that of FPs and the use of more sophisticated phones

could be considered, but as they are also based in the rural areas, the same technical limitations with

respect to electricity supply and networks apply. Reporting and communication could be linked to the FFS

plots and possibly FFS Facilitators could play a role in disease identification and reporting as they are

experts on specific crops. If FFS Facilitators are expected to play a role in reporting beyond the FFS plots,

their relationship with FPs should be changed. Currently they do not play a supervisory or coordinating

role of FPs, other than supporting them with the establishment of the demonstration plot. Finally, FFS

Facilitators are being paid for their services, but with the ending of the BTC support the sustainability of

this arrangement is doubtful.

4. As the SEDOs, but also Sector Agronomists and Sector Veterinarians play a key role I n coordinating the

extension and reporting at village, cell and sector levels, they should also be supported and provided with

mobile phones or tablets.

5. Before the phones are distributed and the system is fully deployed, it is recommended to do a pilot testing

in some districts to ensure that everything works as intended. In addition, adequate training should be

provided.

6. If mobile phones are used for ‘hotline’, or SMS TEXT IT there is need to coordinate/integrate the initiative

with the current Twigire Muhinzi systems conducted by RAB to avoid duplication.

4.3 Options for mobile phone use and cost implications

Regarding routine reporting, the following possibilities exist:

FPs: reporting on demo plot visits, Twigire groups established – farmer mobilisation, input

requirements and distribution, planting, yields and possibly sales. As the use of smart phones by FPs

was not considered feasible, the only option would be to supply simple feature phones to them.

Obviously, this limits the reporting options to using very basic technologies, i.e. calling or SMS-

based/USSD code solutions. A USSD code type of system as used by the MINISANTE VHWs (‘Rapid

SMS’) is not very user-friendly and requires substantial training. A free toll SMS system is easier to

use but more difficult to link to a database. Calling would be the easiest option for FPs but is also not

ideal for reporting on templates such as on the Twigire group input distribution form. Another option

could be to send pictures as even the feature phones have basic cameras. One of the problems in

reporting is the delays in getting the information from the village to the cell and higher levels. If the FP

for example can take a photograph of the input distribution form and send it to the SEDO, this would

enable the SEDO to quickly consolidate the data from the different villages.

FFS Facilitators: reporting on FFS plots. In the FFS reporting system several templates are used that

could be integrated into a mobile phone based reporting system, depending on the type of phone.

However, the templates are currently basically for the FFS group’s own use and the data are not

reported to higher levels. This somehow limits the lessons learned from the ‘research’ to the group.


The FFS plot reporting would require smart phones. Another option would be for FFS Facilitators to

coordinate FPs and play a more pronounced role in facilitating the extension system reporting. This

would require a change of function of FFS.

SEDOs: reporting on all agricultural sector-related data during the season (mostly related to Imihigo

indicators). For SEDOs the use of smart phones and/or tablets would greatly facilitate their work.

Through further systematisation and automation of the reporting system, SEDOs could directly input

into the database, through Apps using the mobile network.

Sector Agronomists and Veterinarians: same as for SEDO, although their roles are slightly different.

In addition, reporting can be done on issues and emergency problems:

The use of mobile phones, and especially the use of cameras could facilitate the monitoring of

diseases and pests and the status of overall crop production. The system should be well established,

for example through the set-up of a national disease database with pictures of diseases for main

crops. Diseases reporting could be linked to a database and GIS, showing area coverage and the

need for rapid response. For example, FFS Facilitators could be put in charge of disease reporting.

Finally, the phones can be used for communication purposes:

Sharing of info, peer-to-peer advice, information on events etc. for example through WhatsApp

groups, or closed user groups for toll free calling and SMS between group members. For example,

WhatsApp groups could be supported in each District, comprising District staff, Sector Agronomist,

Sector Veterinarian, SEDOs, and FFS Facilitators. Or FFS Facilitator WhatsApp groups could be

supported that will enable them to exchange information on different crops.

FPS and FFS Facilitators receiving information from Twigire Muhinzi programme, or from district,

sector or cell officers regarding certain activities to be undertaken or events.

Hotline or call centre enabling FPs to ask for information or advice.

A detailed cost calculation of support services for the different options will have to be made. During the

assessment a representative of MTN was interviewed who provided the following general information:

Toll free calls are done on a reversed billing basis, i.e. the costs are billed to MINAGRI and not to the

caller.

Closed user groups free calling and SMS cost RWF 5,000 per line per month.

A call centre is not applicable for MINAGRI’s situation - it will allow receiving 32 calls at once but is

also very expensive. One or few hotlines using toll free calls would be a better option.

WhatsApp packages cost RWF 21,000 per line per month and RWF 800 per day.

A bulk SMS contract costs about RWF 15/message of maximum 160 characters.

The analysis and options indicate that for the purchase of mobile phones the only feasible option for FPs

would be to supply a simple phone, while for FFS Facilitators a more advance feature phone or smart phone

could be considered. It is highly recommended to also support SEDOs, Sector Agronomists and Sector

Veterinarians with at least good feature phones but preferably smart phones. Table 5 provides a cost estimate

for different options. A simple phone means the most basic phone on the market (RWF 10,000); a simple+

phone refers to a slightly better basic phone of around RWF 20,000; a medium phone refers to a feature

phone with camera, social media features (WhatsApp, Facebook etc.) and basic internet browsing of around

RWF 40,000; and high phone refers to a good smart phone starting from RWF 80,000.


Table 5 - Cost implications of different options (in million RWFs)

Options*

FP

14,200

FFS

Facilit.

2,500

SEDO

2,150

Sector

Agron.

416

Sector

Veter.

416

Total

RWF

(million)

Total

EUR**

1. FP, FFS F, SEDO simple, rest medium 142 25 21.5 16.6 16.6 221. 8 269,478

2. FP, FFS F simple, rest medium 142 25 86 16.6 16.6 286.3 347,849

3. FP, FFS F simple, rest high 142 25 172 33.3 33.3 405.6 492,783

4. FP simple, rest medium 142 100 86 16.6 16.6 361.3 438,979

5. FP simple, FFS F medium, rest high 142 100 172 33.3 33.3 480.6 583,913

6.FP, FFS F, SEDO simple+, rest medium 284 50 86 16.6 16.6 453.3 550,765

*Cost of phones: simple RWF 10,000; simple+ RWF 20,000; medium RWF 40,000; high RWF 80,000.

** Exchange rate Euro - RWF: 823.

Based on the analysis above option 5 would be the most suitable solution, followed by option 3.


Annexes

Annex 1 People interviewed

Name Function Institution Province District Sector Cell Village

Mr Ndayisabye Steven Director of Planning, M&E Local government East Ngoma

Mr Nsengiyumva J.Paul Planning and M&E

Specialist

Local government East Ngoma

Mr Niyongabire Janvier District Agronomist Local government East Ngoma

Ms Mukaruyenzi Bernadette Sector Agronomist Local government East Ngoma

Ms Murekatete Josiane SEDO Local government East Ngoma

Mr Shema Damascene FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi East Ngoma Murama Rurenge Ruvuzi

Mr Mpaziruhuguka J.Pierre FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi East Ngoma Murama Gitaraga Rukizi

Mr Sematuro Aphrodise Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi East Ngoma Murama Gitaraga Rukizi

Ms Uwimbabazi Eline Health worker MINISANTE East Ngoma Murama Rurenge Ruvuzi

Mr Sekibibi Elie Sector Agronomist Local government East Ngoma Mutendeli

Mr Byagirangu Jean Bosco Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi East Ngoma Mutendeli Mutendeli Cyanyoga

Mr Musangwa Alfred Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi East Ngoma Mutendeli Mutendeli Ntonero

Mr Bihoyiki Emmanuel SEDO Local government East Ngoma Mutendeli Gasozi Gasozi

Mr Muhirwa Deogracians FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi East Ngoma Mutendeli Mutendeli Kibaya

Mr Habanabakize Thomas FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi East Ngoma Mutendeli Mutendeli Akarimbu

Mr Valens Director of Agriculture

Extension EAZD/RAB

RAB East Rwamagana Kigabiro

Mr Uwiriyimana Jean

Damascene

Sector Agronomist Local government North Musanze Remera Murwa Murwa


Mr Hakuzweyezu Jean Marie

Vianney

Sector Veterinary Local government North Musanze Remera Murwa Murwa

Mr Mezasegabo Protais Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Remera Murandi Ruganda

Mr Ndayamabje Jean Henry Executive of Cell North Musanze Remera Murwa

Mr Uwimana Donat SEDO Local government North Musanze Remera Murwa

Mr Nshimiyimana Theogene Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Remera Murwa

Mr Namumpaye Jean de Dieu Chief of village North Musanze Remera Murwa Kamanga

Ms Ntacyombaye Lucie Farmer Promoter/FFS

Facilitator

Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Remera Murwa Murwa

Ms Ikitegetse Xaverine Farmer Promoter/FFS

Facilitator

Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Remera Murwa

Mr Kayumba John Director of Agriculture

Extension NAZD/RAB

RAB North Musanze Muhoza

Mr Hodari Camire District Agronomist Local government North Musanze Muhoza

Mr Salomo Statistician Local government North Musanze Muhoza

Mr Jojo Jean Baptiste Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Nyange Kamwumba Kamicaca

Mr Twizerimana Innocent Agrodealer North Musanze Nyange Ninda Nyarubande

Mr Haritwari Schadrak SEDO Local government North Musanze Nyange Kamwumba Kamicaca

Mr Hakizimana Jean Pierre Sector Agronomist Local government North Musanze Nyange Kamwumba Kamicaca

Ms Nyirabarera Rachel FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Nyange Cyivugiza Terimbere

Ms Umutesi Justine Olivier FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Nyange Kabeza Ntamiziro

Mr Kundimana Felicier FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Nyange Kivugiza Rugarama

Mr Nyiramwiza Emerita FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi North Musanze Nyange Kivugiza Kagoma

Mr Nyirimanzi Jean Pierre District Agronomist Local government West Nyabihu

Mr Bizimana Claude District Fertiliser Agent West Nyabihu

Mr Hatangimbabazi Theodore District Cooperatives

Officer

Local government West Nyabihu


Mr Shingiro Eugene District Veterinary Officer Local government West Nyabihu

Mr Maguru Aloys Sector Agronomist Local government West Nyabihu Shyira

Mr Uwitonze Serverien SEDO Local government West Nyabihu Shyira Kimanzovu

Mr Munyaneza Emmanuel Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi West Nyabihu Shyira Kimanzovu Murwato

Ms Mukamurigo Immaculee FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi West Nyabihu Shyira Mpinga Gacurabwenge

Ms Mukayoboka Patricia Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi West Nyabihu Shyira Kanyitana Kazirankora

Mr Harerimana Blaise Director of Agriculture

and Natural Resources

Local government West Rubavu

Mr Uzaribara Boniface Sector Agronomist Local government West Rubavu Busasamana

Mr Habiyambere Elie Sector Veterinary Local government West Rubavu Rugerero

Mr Kanyamahirwe Jean SEDO Local government West Rubavu Busasamana Rusura

Mr Hakizimana Emmanuel District Cash Crop Officer Local government South Ruhango

Mr Rugwizangoga Dieudonne District Veterinary Officer Local government South Ruhango

Mr Ngiraneza Michel Sector Agronomist Local government South Ruhango Ntongwe

Mr Hitimana Diogene SEDO Local government South Ruhango Ntongwe Kimero

Mr Akishatse Samuel FFS Facilitator Twigire Muhinzi South Ruhango Ntongwe Kayenzi Kanyeti

Ms Bamurange Jalia Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi South Ruhango Ntongwe Kayenzi

Ms Mukarugamba Hirari FFS Facilitator livestock Twigire Muhinzi South Ruhango Ntongwe Kimero Gasuma

Mr Niyonsaba Innocent Farmer Promoter Twigire Muhinzi South Ruhango Ntongwe Kayenzi Kanyeti

Mr Munyampirwa Francois District Agronomist Local government South Ruhango

Mr Birago Diop Planning and M&E

specialist

RAB South Ruhango

Mr Hakiza Ndatinya Operation of Manager

Officer (Twigire)

RAB Kigali

Mr Harerimana Emmanuel Innovation Officer

(Twigire)

RAB Kigali


Mr Gatari Egide Fertilizer officer RAB Kigali

Ms Muikayiranga Agnes Crop Production &

Extension Specialist

RAB Kigali

Mr Kagabo Desire Coordinator of Climate

Services for Agriculture

CIAT/CGIAR Kigali

Ms Nsengiyumva Gloriose Assistant Coordinator

Climate Services for

Agriculture

CIAT/CGIAR Kigali

Ms Nyiruyonga Jeanne d'Arc M-FARM MINAGRI Kigali

Ms Uwimana Angelique MINAGRI Kigali

Mr Tony Curran Team Leader to ENR

RBM&E System

NIRAS/MINIRENA Kigali

Mr Raf Somers Co-Manager Market

Oriented Adv. Services

and Quality Seeds

BTC Rwanda Kigali

Mr Ntawuyirusha, Emmanuel HMIS Data quality expert MINISANTE Kigali

Ms Umutoni, Gloria HMIS Database expert MINISANTE Kigali

Mr … Business Devt Officer MTN Kigali

`

Agriculture Technical Assistance Facility

MINAGRI KG 569 Street Kigali Rwanda

[email protected]

assessment of mobile technology for front line extension agents - … · the capacity of farmer...

Documents