Post on 03-Aug-2020
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 3
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:
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 4
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 5
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 6
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 7
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 8
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:
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 9
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 10
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 11
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 12
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 13
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 14
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;
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 15
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 16
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 17
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).
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 18
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 19
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 20
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.
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 21
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 22
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 23
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
Assessment of mobile technology for frontline extension agents 24
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
info@agri-taf.com