TANZANIA Rapid Appraisal of the ICT for Agricultural Extension Landscape in

October 2011

Rapid Appraisal of the ICT for Agricultural Extension Landscape in

TANZANIA

January 2013

Rapid Appraisal of the ICT for Agricultural Extension Landscape in TANZANIA

Submitted to USAID on January 24, 2013

Contents

Executive Summary ... 1

Introduction ... 2

The ICT Landscape ... 3

Country Profile ... 3

Economy ... 3

Telecommunication Sector Policy and Regulatory Status ... 3

Information and Communication Technologies ... 4

The Present ICT Situation ... 5

Apparently Promising Options ... 7

Key Stakeholders ...10

Appendix A: Additional Tables and Figures ...12

Appendix B: References ...17

Appendix C: Current Promising ICT Initiatives in Tanzania ...21

Appendix D: ICT Initiatives Completed or with Potential to Expand Scope in Tanzania ...34

Appendix E-1: Key Stakeholders – Brief Profiles ...44

Service Providers ...44

Information / Content Providers ...46

Donors, Investors and NGOs ...49

Appendix E-2: Key Stakeholders – Detailed Profiles...52

Detailed Profiles – Service Providers ...52

In-Depth Profiles: Information / Content Providers ...57

In-Depth Profiles: Donors and NGOs ...59

Appendix F: Contacts ...61

Confirmed Contacts ...61

No Reply ...62

Other Possible Contacts ...63

Appendix G: Report Prepared by...63

Introduction and Caveats

This is one of three rapid appraisals prepared on the Information Communication technology (ICT) for agricultural extension landscape for Ghana, Tanzania and Ethiopia, three New Alliance countries. The appraisals were conducted primarily as “desk studies” from the US during December 2012 and early January 2013. They were conducted in order to provide potential New Alliance ICT Challenge Grant applicants with information on apparently promising uses of ICT to extend the reach and impact of agriculture extension and advisory services so that such applicants would be able to consider which organizations and services they might include in their grant application or proposed teams. They also provide an overview of each country’s ICT landscape.

An applicant may know more about the organizations and services identified or know of other organizations or services not included. “Promising” options identified in each study may or may not be so promising given the time available to prepare the studies. Further, given an evolving ICT landscape and the resources accessed for the study, the appraisals may include errors or omissions or be outdated by the time the ICT Challenge Fund Request of

Applications is issued. Also one point of concern identified was that a number services listed may not be sustainable without on-going donor support; may not have been evaluated to assess their impact; nor may they be appropriately scalable to meet the goals of the New Alliance. Challenges and strategies are also subjective and may be inaccurate. In short, the appraisals are provided just as one source of information for potential grant applicants to consider.

Executive Summary

The following report is a rapid desk review that focuses on the use of Information and

communication technologies (ICT) and the current ICT landscape in Tanzania. ICT have been identified as having real potential to improve the effectiveness of existing agricultural extension efforts in developing country scenarios. Over the past 25 years, the government of Tanzania has recognized the potential of ICTs in national development and has in fact initiated a series of shifts in policies and investments. However, the government spends only about 7% of its annual budget on the agricultural sector, which accounts for vast majority of national economic activity.

Various ICT initiatives focused on increasing agricultural productivity have been implemented by

both for-profit and not-for-profit non-governmental organizations in Tanzania. To date, those

initiatives that have utilized radio and cell phone networks to complement existing agricultural

extension have proved most successful in conveying reliable and applicable information to rural

farmers. Additionally, mobile cinemas have proved to be successful in environmental education

and hold great potential in agricultural extension. Nevertheless, significant challenges have also

been encountered, including poor radio and cell phone reception, lack of credible information

sources, and lack of awareness on the part of the target audience (the farmers) of the services already available. The apparently promising options for future success are those capable of extending beyond what they are being used for today, thus taking advantage of existing networks, relationships, and experiences to address these challenges and fulfill as-yet unmet needs. Key stakeholders in this success will include trustworthy providers of applicable information; sustainable providers of ICT services; and committed donors.

Information and communication tools such as cell phones, the internet, radio, and television can dramatically improve farmers’ and intermediaries’ access to information relevant for rural households, production agriculture, and agribusinesses. The tools can be used to raise awareness or to provide specific information in response to questions about agricultural technologies, markets, prices, etc. As such these tools are just a part of the extension process and are most effective if combined with established good extension practice.

For extension in general and for ICT in particular to be effective, the service has to be client focused and needs driven, providing credible content and a relevant as well as actionable message through a trusted messenger. Furthermore, access to information is just part of the formula for success. Farmers have to see sufficient evidence that they are convinced to turn the new information received into 1) a willingness to test the approach and then 2) if the test is successful, adopt. Success of an IC tool or approach therefore also depends on availability of required inputs, sufficient knowledge to test and use those inputs appropriately, and access to markets for them to profitably sell their outputs.

Introduction

While face to face interactions may still be considered the best method of effective

communication in extension (Molony, 2008) more often than not, extension agents struggle to meet their clients in a timely or regular manner, particularly in developing countries, where infrastructure, budgets, and other factors can severely limit service provision to rural poor.

Information and communication technologies (ICT)s have emerged as complementary tools to

deliver and improve agricultural extension services, allowing different stakeholders to interact

across geographic barriers in nearly real time. ICTs, such as cell phones, the Internet, radio,

and television, can dramatically improve farmers’ and intermediaries’ access to information

relevant for rural households, production agriculture, and agribusinesses. The tools can be used

to raise awareness or to provide specific information in response to questions about agricultural

technologies, markets, prices, etc. Nevertheless, these tools are just a part of the extension

process, and are most effective if combined with established good extension practice.

The ICT Landscape

Country Profile

The United Republic of Tanzania in Eastern Africa is bordered by Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, and the Indian Ocean. With a surface area of 945,087 km² and an estimated population of about 47 million (2012), the country is divided into 30 regions and is home to more than 120 different ethnic groups (CIA 2012). Religious preference is generally evenly split between Islam, Christianity, and traditional beliefs. Population growth currently stands at just under 3%, with a per capita GDP of 1,600 USD. While the official language of the courts is English, Swahili is the unifying language of the country’s different ethnic groups, each of which actually has their own language ( Masebo and Nyangwine, nd) . These are usually the first language learned, with Swahili and English learned later in schooling (Lewis, 2009). Dar es Salaam is the commercial capital of Tanzania and major seaport for many of the neighboring landlocked countries (CIA, 2012).

Refer to Table 8 Appendix A below for more demographic information.

Economy

While agriculture accounts for more than 25% of Tanzanian GDP, providing 85% of exports and employing about 80% of the work force, the country’s average 7% annual GDP growth over the past decade has been principally attributed to mineral production and banking reforms (Tan Serve, 2008). Prominent agricultural products include coffee, tea, cotton, cashews, tobacco, clove, fruits, vegetables, and livestock (CIA, 2012). The government spends about 7% of its budget on agriculture. However, “price controls and unreliable cash flow to farmers continue to hamper growth in the agricultural sector.” (Heritage Foundation, 2012). In fact, a recent survey of 4,000 farmers in Tanzania revealed that more than 75% see access to markets as a major obstacle. Nearly 60% cited access to finance as a challenge. (Winter, 2012) With 30% of the national budget dependent upon bilateral donor assistance from institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, the country is pursuing economic advancement through the development of intra-African important trade links, such as rail and port infrastructure (Heritage Foundation, 2012).

Telecommunication Sector Policy and Regulatory Status

In 2003 the Tanzanian government approved the National ICT Policy (NICTP). The policy’s vision is for “Tanzania to become a hub of ICT Infrastructure and ICT solutions that enhance sustainable socioeconomic development and accelerated poverty reduction both nationally and globally” (URT, 2003). Additionally, the International Telecommunication Construction

Corporation of China is constructing the 5,300km Tanzanian National Information

Communications Technology Broadband Backbone infrastructure (TeleGeography, 2012). In

addition, Tanzania has joined with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and other

member countries of the Southern African Development Cooperation (SADC) to convert to

digital broadcasting. As of December 31, 2012, 23% of the country had officially migrated from

analogue to digital technology (Rugonzibwa, 2013).

The Tanzania Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) was established in 2003 via the NICTP as an independent authority for the regulation and licensing of postal, broadcasting and electronic communications industries in Tanzania. The agency oversees the Regulation of Tanzania Communication Commission and the Tanzania Broadcasting Commission (TBC). The parent ministry is the Ministry for Communications, Science and Technology, which operates under the Tanzania Commission of Science and Technology. (Materu-Behitsa, Diyamett, 2010) The TCRA is charged with implementing the National Strategy for Growth and Poverty

Reduction, which aims to promote the use of ICT in rural areas specifically through telecenters (TCRA, 2011). Accordingly, it is required that every licensed telecommunication service provider extend services to cover rural areas. In turn, the Universal Communications Services Act of 2006 provides for special concessions to service providers in this sector. The creation of the TCRA, in combination with the Communications Act of 1993 and the National

Telecommunications Policy launched in 1997, began a new era for the communications sector in Tanzania, making telecommunications “one of the most liberalized sectors of the economy”

(Materu-Behitsa, Diyamett, 2010).

Nevertheless, an ICT Benchmarking Report for the EAC (2009) identified various challenges for this effort, including, “ownership of the process; institutional and governance structure; capacity and coordination among ministries; and competition for resources among ministries,

departments and agencies” (Hashim, 2011). The lack of harmonization among ICT related policies has led to the adoption of different systems and standards resulting in an unnecessary duplication of effort, wasting already scarce national resources and further hindering national development and global presence (Materu-Behitsa, Diyamett, 2010).

Information and Communication Technologies

While there are no subscription fees for neither radio nor television programs, radio

broadcasting is more accessible than television (Materu-Behitsa, Diyamett, 2010), likely due to poor electrical access. Radio penetration in rural areas can be limited by weak reception (Materu-Behitsa, Diyamett, 2010). Most of the radio and TV stations with regional or district coverage are privately owned and operated with smaller capital investments. In 2010 the TCRA reported 70 radio stations and 26 television stations (Table 6, Appendix A). Radio Maria, Tanzanian Broadcasting Corporation, and Radio Free Africa have been confirmed as transmitting agricultural information (Mato, personal communication, January 2013). Public buses typically feature televisions with videotape and DVD capacity

¹

; these are typically utilized to show recordings of television broadcasts from Kenya.

Due to efforts to nationalize the communications networks, foreigners are not permitted to run media institutions. Foreign investment in any media outlet may not exceed 49%. Foreigners can only be employed as technical experts and only when such expertise is not locally available.

(Materu-Behitsa, Diyamett, 2010). There is currently no national manufacturer of ICT equipment in Tanzania (Materu-Behitsa, Diyamett, 2010).

1Personal communication, Heather Cruise (UC Davis, 1/9/2013)

Currently there are two national fixed-line operators, TTCL and Zantel. In January 2012, there were approximately 161,000 fixed-line subscribers, compared to about 28 million mobile phone subscribers (Table 5, Appendix A) [TCRA 2012]. This may be due to the fact that landlines are subscription-based, while cell phones do not require payment to maintain a connection when services are not in use (Molony, 2008), but the very high cost of fixed lines is also an issue

²

. Mobile telephone services were introduced in 1995. The market shares of the four major mobile operators are: Vodacom (44%), Airtel (27%), Tigo (20%), and Zantel (8%). As of June 2012 there were 28 million SIM subscribers (TCRA, 2012) (Tables 4 and 6, Appendix A). The mobile sector contributed more than 99% of all voice subscriptions in 2012 (TCRA 2012); the majority of mobile services are prepaid (Gillwald & Stork, 2008). Mobile phone use in Tanzania is relatively costly due to heavy taxation of communications equipment and services; Nokia calculates the total-cost-of-ownership for mobile phones in Tanzania as just below the global average of 44.18 USD per month, as contrasted with 25.30 USD per month in Kenya (Materu- Behitsa,Diyamett, 2010).

It was estimated that by June 2010 only 11% of Tanzanians had accessed the Internet. Of that, 5% of access came from Internet cafes, 55% from organizations/institutions, and 40% from households. (Tables 4, 5, and 6, Appendix A) The percentage of mobile subscriptions with broadband access in 2011 was about 2% (iHub, 2012). Due to the high cost of personal

computers and Internet-enabled devices, ownership of these instruments is rare. With respect to Internet providers, the Tanzania Communications Commission licenses companies to provide public data communication services including Internet bandwidth (Table 8, Appendix A). Data operators are independently responsible for securing their connection. There is no national Internet Exchange Point; rather, Tanzania’s local traffic is routed internationally. (Materu- Behitsa,Diyamett, 2010) According to TCRA (2010), the total Internet and data capacity of Tanzania is 3,459Mbps, of which 43% is from satellite and 57% is fiber optic. Of this total

capacity, only 65% was in use as of June 2010 (TCRA 2010). In 2006 Tanzania established the Universal Communications Access Fund to finance rural telecommunications. They are

expecting to build about 3000 telecenters in underserved areas, although unreliable electricity and the high cost of internet remain significant obstacles (Matarubukwa, 2011). Internet access in telecenters is achieved via VSAT or broadband, both of which remain challenging in terms of cost and connectivity

³

.

The Present ICT Situation

The Government of Tanzania is determined to integrate ICT in all aspects of socio-

economic activities and recognizes that joint and deliberate efforts by various stakeholders are imperative (Yonazi, 2009). Thus, current efforts using ICTs for agricultural extension in

2Personal communication, Andrea Bohn (University of Illinois, 1/8/2013)

3Personal communication, Naomi Maselle (Office Manager Tanzania Telecenter Network and director of CROMABU telecenter, 1/10/2013)

the country are found in the public sector, NGOs, for-profit organizations and donor-funded projects (See Appendix C for a description of current ICT agricultural extension initiatives in Tanzania).

As exemplified in Table 1 below, the most frequently employed technologies in these initiatives include cellphones, Internet, and radio; many initiatives use a combination of these. Cellphones are widely used to deliver market information (initiatives mentioned in Appendix D) but promising initiatives have explored other uses, including specific

agricultural information, pest and disease alerts, remote livestock disease diagnosis, and sharing of pictures and videos. As the most widely accessible ICT to rural farmers, radios have thus far been the most successful technologic enhancement of agricultural extension.

Local radio programs are playing host to various initiatives to engage farmers with each other and extension agents to improve agricultural productivity. While Internet is still widely unavailable to rural farmers, it is becoming increasingly important in delivering information to extension agents and agricultural experts working with farmers. TV is the least used - almost absent- tool in agricultural extension.

Table 1: Summary of Initiatives by ICT Used

ICT Example Initiatives

Radio Farmer Voice Radio

Rice Regional Centre of Excellence Call Center Tigo-Kilimo

Cell phone Health for Animals and Livelihood Improvement Sauti ya wakulima, "The voice of the farmers"

mAgri/mfarmer

Rice Regional Centre of Excellence TV Rice Regional Centre of Excellence Internet Crop Protection Compendium

Rice Regional Centre of Excellence Community Knowledge Centre

Sauti ya wakulima, "The voice of the farmers"

ALIN Maarifa (“knowledge”) Centers

Although the use of ICTs tools is quite promising in Tanzania, there are diverse challenges to overcome. Among the challenges identified in the report “ICT4D: Facing the challenges head-on in Tanzania” by Yonazi (2009) are the unsupportive ICT connectivity and supporting

infrastructure (roads and electricity), inadequate quality of ICT content, limited ICT skills, and limited awareness of ICT benefits. In Tanzania, other specific challenges faced by current efforts include language barriers, literacy, project sustainability, and the high cost of the

technologies. A complete list of identified challenges and potential strategies to consider in their

resolution are explored in Table 10, Appendix A.

Apparently Promising Options

We believe the most promising initiatives that a grantee might consider including in their extension proposal are those capable of being extended beyond what they are being used for today. Such an approach will take advantage of existing networks, relationships, and experiences to fulfill unmet needs. Furthermore, ICT approaches likely to be successful should consider strategies to overcome current challenges faced by farmers in the country.

Approaches with a combination of various ICT tools and direct communication may often be the right fit. Strategies that permit interaction and a direct exchange of personalized

information with individual users as well as between multiple parties (i.e., organization to farmer, farmer to organization, and farmer to farmer) are more impactful than a one-way (i.e., organization to farmer) provision of general prescriptive information.

Experts in-country

⁴

have confirmed that given the limited accessibility of the internet for Tanzanian farmers, local radio programs have been and for some time will continue to be the most successful form of ICT to reach farmers. Nevertheless, this option is not as low cost as might be assumed

⁵

. This augmented costs is partially due to the fact that national radios—which reach the most listeners for the lowest cost—principally reach urban dwellers (RLDC, 2009), and cannot provide region-specific information. This necessitates the

utilization of various local radio stations in rural areas to provide adequate reception, sufficiently region-specific agricultural information, and trained staff.

The rapidly increasing popularity of cellular phones give cell phone networks and

agricultural extension call centers growing potential, both independently and in tandem with other initiatives, such as radio programs. Both cell phones and radio offer the farmer the ability to receive extension information without leaving their responsibilities at home.

Because electricity is largely unavailable in rural areas, dukas, or cell phone charging stations, are frequented by a diverse audience of locals and may be a potential point of extension contact. As mentioned in the previous section, promising initiatives using cellphones explore uses that go beyond delivery of market information, such as SMS and voice message delivery of specific agricultural information and pest and disease alerts, remote livestock disease diagnosis, and farmers’ networks sharing pictures and videos of agricultural practices. Farmers will need training to fully employ the cell phone extension service tool, since currently cell phones are mainly used only for personal use

⁶

.

4Personal communications with Richard Bruno (African Institute for Capacity Development, 12/26/2012); Dr. Janet Kaaya (Division of Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, 01/02/2013);

Kees Vog (Winrock International, 01/06/2013); Dr. Sultan H. Jaribi (CAHNET Tanzania, 01/04/2013); Fr. Nestor Mtweve (Njombe Development Office 01/05/2013); Naomi Maselle, (Office Manager Tanzania Telecenter Network and director of CROMABU telecenter,1/10/2013); Marcely Madubi (Winrock International, 1/10/2013)

5Dr. Janet Kaaya (Division of Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, 01/02/2013

6Marcelo Madubi (Winrock International, 1/10/2013)

Mobile cinema, which has proved to easily engage villagers by overcoming language and literacy barriers

⁷

, has been well received in a conservation context, thus holding potential to be extended into the agricultural outreach sector as well. Currently, mobile cinema in Tanzania consists of vans provided with a generator to run a video or DVD projector on a screen to show films out-door (Development Associates Ltd., 2004) and in-door (usually, schools and churches)

⁸

. There is even the possibility to use a bicycle-powered generator, overcoming the challenge of electricity access or battery requirements. The great

advantage of using mobile cinema, or even to a lower scale audio visual content shared with farmers’ groups via CD, is that people can actually see and therefore are more likely to actively look and learn about the specific topics and practices shown

⁹

.

Finally, Internet, while still generally inaccessible to rural farmers, is an important informational reference for extension agents and agricultural experts working through agricultural radio programs, call centers, and in the field. In this sense, rural

communication centers (RCAs) appear to be promising, especially when intermediaries can help to overcome barriers of illiteracy and lack of computer skills. RCAs are meeting points to reach a broad audience, offer multiple types of information, and assess local needs. In addition, the Tanzanian government, through the Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority (TCRA), has committed to support improvement of telecenters’

performance and sustainability as a strategy to improve livelihood of rural people (TCRA, BIID and TTN, 2011). Currently, telecenters in Tanzania face poor capacity service, low skilled staff, limited technology (both in terms internet access and hardware), and limited access to electricity (TCRA, BIID and TTN, 2011), in addition to sustainability, since most telecenters started as “pilot projects” and struggle to sustain after the projects end

¹⁰

. This has resulted in having very few active telecenters in rural areas due to the high cost of Internet access and electricity or power generators

¹¹

.

See Table 2 below for a complete list of the most promising ICT approaches with technology resources currently available in-country and how they may be used in agricultural extension. Further examples and in-depth profiles of the same are given in Appendix C.

Tables 2: Most Promising ICT Approaches (in order of degree of likely success) Radio Programs

Current Use

- Various extension initiatives (agriculture, health, education, etc) - National and local/community radios

Alternative

Local and permanent agricultural programs

7Richard Bruno (African Institute for Capacity Development, 12/26/2012)

8Richard Bruno (African Institute for Capacity Development, 12/26/2012)

9Naomi Maselle, (Office Manager Tanzania Telecenter Network and director of CROMABU telecenter, 1/10/2013)

10Naomi Maselle, (Office Manager Tanzania Telecenter Network and director of CROMABU telecenter, 1/10/2013)

11Naomi Maselle, (Office Manager Tanzania Telecenter Network and director of CROMABU telecenter, 1/10/2013)

Application Why

Promising

- Reaches people at home and in groups (community listening) - Overcomes electricity issues via battery operation

- Overcomes illiteracy.

- Takes advantage of existing networks.

Framing Conditions

Trustworthy source of information, locally relevant, sustainable.

Example

Farmer Voice Radio (FVR)

Cell Phone Networks

Current Use

Principally market information, automated alerts, and pollsters.

Alternative Application

Pest/disease alerts and spread mapping, remote

troubleshooting/diagnosis, sharing pictures and videos of good practices, personalized extension support.

Why Promising

- Intermediaries generally have sustainable business models - Reaches people at home

- Networks already exist.

- Reaches beyond individual user when message spread through “word of mouth” or when users are representatives of farmers’ groups.

- Offers use for both literate (SMS) and illiterate (voice message, pictures, videos) users

Framing Conditions

Trustworthy source, available charging stations, could use intermediaries when necessary (to overcome illiteracy when text messaging is used).

Example

CAHNET, HALI project, GLCI project, Esoko, FrontlineSMS.

Call Centers/ Farm Help Lines Current

Use

Personalized agricultural extension

Alternative

Application

Expansion of the same

Why

Promising

Opportunity to provide timely and relevant information; track diseases/pest outbreaks.

Framing Conditions

Trustworthy source, Locally relevant (universities, research centers), good promotion to make farmers aware of the service, affordability

Example

Tigo-Kilimo

Mobile Cinema Current

Use

Environmental education

Alternative

Application

Agricultural extension

Why Promising

Overcomes illiteracy barrier, novel resource, easy to engage farmers.

Framing Conditions

Trustworthy source, locally relevant.

Example

Maajabu Mobile Cinema¹², Electric Pedals¹³, Friends of Ruaha Society¹⁴

Rural Communication Centers Current

Use

To access the internet via computers installed at the center. Computer literacy, market information

Alternative Application

Charging phones, agricultural information, communication channel with authorities (report current problems and pest/diseases outbreaks).

Why Promising

Provides access to broad sources of agricultural information and meeting point for farmers.

Framing Conditions

Trustworthy source, locally relevant, reliable electricity source, use intermediaries to overcome literacy barriers.

Example

ALIN Maarifa centers, IICD RCAs, Community Knowledge Centre

Key Stakeholders

As emphasized by the Tanzanian government, joint and deliberate efforts by various players are imperative to successfully integrate ICT in socio-economic activities (Yonazi, 2009). Partnership for projects is critical and should involve a variety of actors, such as public extension and

research services, community-based organizations, NGOs, farmer associations, existing ICTs initiatives, as well as private companies, in order to take advantage of existing networks and trust on public and government institutions

¹⁵

. This also helps in understanding the variegated needs and problems of the target audience, which is composed of farmers of varying economic levels, education levels, geoclimatic regions, and production foci

¹⁶

,

¹⁷

.

12By the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum. Between 2005-2009, the film show unit visited 6 regions and showed environmental films to over 50,000 people. The equipment includes a video projector, a screen, a clear sound system and a generator. http://www.tnrf.org. Accessed January 9, 2013.

13 Conservation initiative with pedal powered field cinemas providing environmental education to support the Udzungwa Forest Project (UFP). http://electricpedals.com/2011/07/19/news-flash-from-tanzania/. Accessed January 9, 2013.

14 Environmental Education, Educational Film Shows reaching 10,000 villagers in 2008.

http://www.friendsofruaha.org/home.html Accessed January 4, 2013.

15 Janet Kayaa, (Division of Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security, and Cooperatives, 01/02/2013 and 1/10/2013, resp.)

16 Richard Bruno (African Institute for Capacity Development, 12/26/2012)

17 Sultan Hussain Jaribi (CAHNET, 01/03/2013)

Numerous potentially important actors are currently participating in the agricultural extension enhancement through ICT in Tanzania. These stakeholders fill a variety of roles. Service providers, such as Esoko, Magpi, and Freedom Fone, offer customizable software and

communication platforms to connect agricultural specialists to farmers. Information providers,

including Farm Radio International, Infonet, and the Community Animal Health Network, provide

expertise on issues confronted by farmers. Finally, donors and NGOs provide essential funding,

monitoring and evaluation, and coordinative efforts to connect providers. These actors cover

the spectrum of technologic options, and in many cases have combined various technologies to

better meet the communication needs and preferences of their users. At the same time, there is

significant overlap and repetition in the services they provide; determination of which would be

most successful as part of a new development initiative may largely depend on their ability to

expand and adapt their current functions to address as-yet unmet needs. A list of the most

promising and pertinent stakeholders according to their principle function with respect to

agricultural ICT initiatives in Tanzania has been provided in Appendix E, along with in-depth

profiles for select stakeholders. Current promising projects and initiatives supported by

stakeholders listed here are described in Appendix C.

Appendix A: Additional Tables and Figures

Table 3: Internet Subscribers by subscription type:

2008 2010

Internet Cafes 350 723

Organizations/Institutions 3,055 3,329

Household/Individuals 248,433 483,204

Total 251,838 487,256

Source: (TCRA, 2010)

Table 4: Internet Subscribers by access type:

2008 2010

Cable Subscribers 589 594

Fixed Wireless Subscribers 2,585 3,150

Mobile Wireless Subscribers 232,302 462,514

VSAT Subscribers 1,252 1,254

Fibre-to-home 0 0

Other Broadband Subscribers 15,110 19,744

Total 251,383 487,256

Source: (TCRA, 2010)

Table 5: Internet users by subscription type:

2008 2010

Internet Cafes 126,000 260,280

Organizations/Institutions 2,444,000 2,663,200

Household/Individuals 993,732 1,932,816

Total 3,563,732 4,856,296

Source: (TCRA, 2010)

Table 6: Sector Overview

Access 2005 2010

Fixed-telephone subscriptions (per 100 people) 0.4 0.4

Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions (per 100 people) 7.6 46.8

Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions (per 100 people) 0.00 0.01

Households with a computer (%) 2.1* 2.6*

Households with Internet access at home (%) 0.5* 0.7*

Usage

Int’l. voice traffic, total (minutes/subscription/month) 3.1 1.2

Domestic mobile traffic (minutes/subscription/month) 7.1 56.7

Individuals using the Internet (%) 4.3* 11.0

Quality

Population covered by a mobile-cellular network (%) 45 85

Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions (% of total Internet) 1.6 0.6

International Internet bandwidth (bit/s per Internet user) 60* 701

Affordability

Fixed-telephone sub-basket ($ a month) .. 8.8

Mobile cellular sub-basket ($ a month) .. 9.7

Fixed-broadband sub-basket ($ a month) .. 20.8

Trade

ICT goods exports (% of total goods exports) 0.3 0.4

ICT goods imports (% of total goods imports) 5.8 3.8

ICT service exports (% of total service exports) 2.7 2.1

Applications

E-government Web measure index (0–1, 1=highest presence) 0.29 0.35

Secure Internet servers (per million people) 0.1 0.5

* ITU estimation

Source: 2012 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

Table 7: Sector Market Overview

Telephone and Internet Operators: 2006 2010

Fixed Line Operators 2 2

Mobile Operators 5 10

Data Operators and Internet Service Providers 25 80

Number of Television Stations:

National Television Stations 6 5

Regional Television Stations 2 1

District Television Stations 22 20

Total 29 26

Number of Radio Stations:

National Radio Stations 5 6

Regional Radio Stations 8 18

District Radio Stations 31 43

Community Radio Stations 2 3

Total 46 70

Source: URT 2011

Table 8: Tanzania - Basic Socio-Economic Facts 2012

Category Fact

Population 46,912,768

Population growth 2.85%

Religions: Mainland: Muslim - 35%, Traditional beliefs - 35%, Christian - 30%. Zanzibar: Muslim 99%

Literacy 69.4% of the population (Male: 77.5%; Female: 62.2%) (2002 Census CIA)

GDP (PPP) $67.9 billion (2011 est.) GDP Per Capita (PPP) $1,600

Labor force 24.06 Million

GDP (Composition by sector)

Agriculture (27.8%), Industry (24.2%), Service (48.%) (2011 est.)

Source: CIA (2012)

Table 9. Challenges in the use of ICTs and strategies to consider in future initiatives.

Current challenges

Strategies to consider

Language barriers - wide language diversity of native tongues

● Provision of content in Kiswahili¹⁸, together with the rise in literacy in the current population (around 70%; CIA, 2012), (Yonazi, 2009).

Literacy ● Voice messaging through cell phones¹⁹

● Favor graphics, photos, and videos over text

Lower access to technology by women compared to man²⁰

● Consider a gender-based perspective, using technologies that can be easily accessed by women, such as radio.

● Consider forming groups of women that can support and share information with each other.

Computer/

technology literacy

● Consider an intermediary approach to assist end users.

● Train users on basic computer skills. Consider different uses of computers depending on the user. For example: extension agents are able to access and understand complex websites, while farmers would benefit more when accessing pictures and videos.

Networking between projects

● Build on existing/previous efforts to take advantage of users’

knowledge and experience.

● Training is most successful in person

21

. Working in groups and using current networks will make this process more cost effective.

Project sustainability²²

● Commit user to share part of the cost. For example, if information provided via SMS is relevant and useful, farmers will pay to receive those messages23.

● Consider other services that use ICTs to sustain the project. For example, ALIN telecenters use money transfer service fees to offset costs. Revenue may also be generated through sponsorship/

advertising but bears the risk that the IC channel is perceived as biased towards those companies.

● Make audience aware of the available services

24

.

18Richard Bruno. African Institute for Capacity Development. Personal communication 12/26/2012; Dr. Janet Kaaya.

Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives. Personal communication 01/02/2013; David Wolking. One Health Institute - Wildlife Health Center University of California, Davis. Personal communication 01/04/2013.

19Dr. Janet Kaaya. Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives.

Personal communication 01/02/2013

20 Marcely Madubi (Winrock International, 01/11/2013) e-mail communication.

21 Dr. Sultan H. Jaribi (CAHNET, 1/3/2013) personal communication

22 Dr. Janet Kaaya. Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives.

Personal communication 01/02/2013

23Dr. Janet Kaaya. Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives.

Personal communication 01/02/2013

Trustworthiness, credibility, and relevance of information

● Provide needs-driven information.

● Use current sources of information preferred by farmers.

● Work with agricultural research centers, extension agents, and universities (Sokoine and others)²⁵.

● Consider agricultural practices that use locally available resources, financing sources, markets²⁶, and products.

● Recognize and target diverse²⁷ audience groups²⁸.

● Provide a clear message, especially when using SMS²⁹.

Electricity access and reliability³⁰

● Consider alternative energy options (solar, indiGo, motor bike transformers)

● Link with telecenters, rural communication centers, dukas (shops that provide cell phone charging service, phone cards, and groceries).

Internet access (cost, low bandwidth)³¹

● Consider promoting internet access for intermediary approach rather than trying to reach end users.

Cell phone coverage/

technology reliability³²

● Consider the use of “lower” technology hardware and software that is more reliable or more easily repaired

Lack of access to market

information

● Consider existing services provided on market prices and market intelligence information.

● Consider providing agricultural information and market information.

24Dr. Janet Kaaya. Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives.

Personal communication 01/02/2013

25Dr. Janet Kaaya. Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives.

Personal communication 01/02/2013; Dr. Sultan H. Jaribi. CAHNET Tanzania. Personal communication 01/03/2013;

David Wolking. One Health Institute - Wildlife Health Center University of California, Davis. Personal communication 01/04/2013; Marsely Madubi, Winrock International. Personal communication 01/10/2013.

26David Wolking. One Health Institute - Wildlife Health Center University of California, Davis. Personal communication 01/04/2013; Dr. Sultan H. Jaribi. CAHNET Tanzania. Personal communication 01/03/2013.

27Richard Bruno. African Institute for Capacity Development. Personal communication 12/26/2012; Dr. Sultan H.

Jaribi. CAHNET Tanzania. Personal communication 01/03/2013; Dr. Janet Kaaya. Division of Research &

Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives. Personal communication 01/02/2013.

28Fr. Nestor Mtweve, Njombe Development Office. Personal communication 01/05/2013; Kees Vogt, Winrock International. Personal communication 01/06/2013.

29Dr. Janet Kaaya. Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives.

Personal communication 01/02/2013.

30Richard Bruno. African Institute for Capacity Development. Personal communication 12/26/2012; Dr. Janet Kaaya.

Division of Research & Development Ministry of Agriculture Food Security & Cooperatives. Personal communication 01/02/2013.

31Fr. Nestor Mtweve, Njombe Development Office. Personal communication 01/05/2013; Kees Vogt, Winrock International. Personal communication 01/06/2013.

32Fr. Nestor Mtweve, Njombe Development Office. Personal communication 01/05/2013; Kees Vogt, Winrock International. Personal communication 01/06/2013.

Appendix B: References

Informational Reports and Web Articles

African Farm Radio Research Initiative (AFRRI), Farm Radio International. "Participatory Radio Campaigns and food security: How radio can help farmers make informed decisions."

2011. www.farmradio.org/wp-content/uploads/farmradio-prcreport20111.pdf (accessed January 8, 2013).

Al-Amani Mutarubukwa. “Tanzania: Government to Build 3000 Telecentres in Rural Areas,” The Citizen, November 13, 2011. http://allafrica.com/stories/201111140648.html (accessed January 6, 2013).

Amadou Bal and Julia Brunt, “The CPC: a multimedia tool to identify pests”. ICTupdate Issue no.

33 (August 2006). http://ictupdate.cta.int/Feature-Articles/The-CPC-a-multimedia-tool-to- identify-pests (accessed December 14, 2012)

Catholic Relief Services. “Final Report on the Great Lakes Cassava Initiative.” 2012.

www.crsprogramquality.org/storage/pubs/agenv/glci-final-report.pdf (accessed December 20, 2012).

CIA. “The World Fact Book: Tanzania.” 2012.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/tz.html#top (accessed January 2, 2013).

Development Associates Ltd. "Media profile - Tanzania", Project document, DFID R8351. 2004.

www.tv4d.org/Tanzania_4_Mediaprofile.pdf (accessed January 9, 2013).

Diyamett, Bitrina and Materu-Behitsa, Mary. “Tanzania ICT Sector Performance Review 2009/2010.” Towards Evidence-based ICT Policy and Regulation Volume 2, Policy Paper 11. 2010.

www.researchictafrica.net/publications/Policy_Paper_Series_Towards_Evidence- based_ICT_Policy_and_Regulation_-_Volume_2/Vol%202%20Paper%2011%20-

%20Tanzania%20ICT%20Sector%20Performance%20Review%202010.pdf (accessed December 19, 2012).

GSMA. “Agricultural Value Added Services (Agri VAS): Market Entry Toolkit”. 2011.

www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/agricultural-value-added-services-agri-vas- market-entry-toolkit/ (accessed January 3, 2012).

iHub. "Mobile Technology in Tanzania." Accessed January 11, 2013.

http://www.ihub.co.ke/blog/2012/01/mobile-technology-in-tanzania/

IICD, International Institute for Communication and Development. “ICT Missionary in Tanzania Sets Up Successful Rural Services Centre.” Published January 28, 2011.

www.iicd.org/articles/2018ict-missionary2019-in-tanzania-sets-up-successful-rural- services-centre# (accessed December 10, 2012)

ITU, International Telecommunication Union, and The World Bank. “The Little Data Book on Information and Communication Technology” Washington, D.C. 2012. 20433, pg 208.

www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/material/LDB_ICT_2012.pdf (accessed December 29,

2012).

J. Masebo and N. Nyangwine, “Nadharia ya lugha Kiswahili “1. S. 126, ISBN 978-9987-676-09- 5

Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere and Daniel Ayalew Mekonnen. “The Importance of ICTs in the Provision of Information for Improving Agricultural Productivity and Rural Incomes in Africa.” UNDP Working Paper. 2012. http://web.undp.org/africa/knowledge/WP-2012- 015-okyere-mekonnen-ict-productivity.pdf (accessed December 18, 2012).

Lewis, Paul. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 16th ed. Dallas, Tex: SIL International. 2009.

www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=tz (accessed December 28, 2012) Molony, Thomas. “Running out of credit: the limitations of mobile telephony in a Tanzanian

agricultural marketing system”. The Journal of Modern African Studies 46 (2008): 637- 658.

Martin, Phyllis and O'Meara, Patrick. Africa. 3rd edition. Indiana University Press 1995.

Rugonzibwa, Pious. “Tanzania: Public Embraces Digital Migration.” Tanzania Daily News.

January 1, 2013. http://allafrica.com/stories/201301020140.html (accessed January 3, 2013).

Ratansi Shamiza. “Regulating the communications sector in Tanzania.” Legal Note, November 4, 2012. www.alnpublications.com/?p=133. (accessed January 2, 2013).

Rural Livelihood Development Company (RLDC). “Commercial Radio Services

Sub sector Development Strategy: Proposed Project on Facilitation of the Testing and

Demonstration of Commercial Radio Programs Targeting the Needs of Rural Producers”.

2009. www.rldc.co.tz/docs/strategy/Radiostrategy.pdf (accessed January 7, 2013).

Sanga, Churi, and Tumbo. “Status, Opportunities, Potential, and Challenges of Technology- Mediated Open and Distance Education for Agricultural Education and Improved Livelihoods--A Case Study of Tanzania”. 2007. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania.

http://wikieducator.org/Tech-MODE_in_Tanzania or

www.col.org/resources/publications/Pages/detail.aspx?PID=258 (accessed December 11, 2012)

TeleGeography. “Movitel in talks to secure Tanzanian NICTBB bandwidth.” Last modified 2012.

www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/07/02/movitel-in-talks-to- secure-tanzanian-nictbb-bandwidth/. (accessed January 2, 2013).

The Heritage Foundation. “Tanzania.“ 2012. www.heritage.org/index/country/tanzania.

(accessed January 2, 2013).

Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority (TCRA), Bangladesh Institute of ICT in

Development (BIID), and Tanzania Telecentre Network (TTN). “Joint Impact Assessment, Services Need Analysis and Designing Business Model Towards Developing A

Sustainable Network of Telecentres in The United Republic of Tanzania”. 2011.

www.tcra.go.tz/publications/telecentresReport.pdf (accessed December 29, 2012).

Tanzania Communications Regulatory Agency (TCRA). “Broadcasting Services Report 2000- 2006.” 2006. www.tcra.go.tz/publications/telecomStatsJune12.pdf (accessed December 29, 2012).

Tanzania Communications Regulatory Agency (TCRA). “Quarterly Telecom Statistics Quarter 4 Report 2012.” 2012. www.tcra.go.tz/publications/telecomStatsJune12.pdf (accessed January 3, 2013).

Tanzania Communications Regulatory Agency (TCRA). “Report on Internet and Data Services in Tanzania: A Supply-Side Survey.” 2010.

www.tcra.go.tz/publications/InternetDataSurveyScd.pdf (accessed December 29, 2012).

Twaakyondo, Hashim M. “Key Issues in Information Communication Technology Policy Review Process: The Case of Tanzania.” International Journal of Computing and ICT Research.

5, (2011) pp.46-58. http://ijcir.org/volume5-number2/article5.pdf (accessed December 19, 2012).

United Republic of Tanzania (URT). “National ICT Policy.” 2009.

www.tanzania.go.tz/pdf/ictpolicy.pdf (accessed December 29, 2012).

United Republic of Tanzania (URT) Planning Commission. “The Tanzania Five Year Development Plan.” 2011. http://best-ac.org/wp-content/uploads/Presidents-Office- Planning-Commission-2011-05-Tanzania-Five-Year-Plan-2011-2015-Draft.pdf (accessed December 29, 2012).

United Republic of Tanzania (URT) Ministry of Finance, National Bureau of Statistics. “Tanzania in Figures.”

2011.www.nbs.go.tz/takwimu/references/Tanzania_in_Figures2010.pdf.(accessed December 29, 2012).

USAID. “USAID ICT and AG Briefing Paper: Call Centers for Agricultural Information”.

2012.https://communities.usaidallnet.gov/ictforag/node/246 (accessed December 11, 2012) USAID.

USAID. “USAID ICT and AG Profile: Agro-Tech Ltd”. 2012.

https://communities.usaidallnet.gov/ictforag/node/342 (accessed December 12, 2012) USAID. “USAID ICT and AG Profile: Esoko”. 2011.

https://communities.usaidallnet.gov/ictforag/node/69 (accessed December 12, 2012) USAID. “USAID ICT and AG Profile: Freedom Fone”. 2012.

https://communities.usaidallnet.gov/ictforag/node/319 (accessed December 12, 2012) USAID. “USAID ICT and AG Profile: FrontlineSMS”. 2012.

https://communities.usaidallnet.gov/ictforag/node/304 (accessed December 12, 2012) USAID. “USAID ICT and AG Profile: Magpi (formerly Episurveyor)”. 2012. USAID ICT and AG

Profile. https://communities.usaidallnet.gov/ictforag/node/345 (accessed December 12, 2012)

USAID. “USAID ICT and AG Profile: Sustainable Harvest”. 2011.

https://communities.usaidallnet.gov/ictforag/node/115 (accessed December 12, 2012)

Winter, Simon. “A Growing Lifeline: Mobile Technologies in Agricultural Development.”

Technoserve, November 11, 2012. www.technoserve.org/blog/a-growing-lifeline-mobile- technologies-in-agricultural-development#.UOR2Nonjmz5. (accessed January 2, 2013).

World Bank, infoDev, ARD. “e-sourcebook ICT IN AGRICULTURE Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, and Institutions”. Report Number 64605. 2011.

www.ictinagriculture.org/ictinag/sites/ictinagriculture.org/files/ICT_in_Agriculture_light.pdf (accessed December 19, 2012).

Yonazi, Jim. “ICT4D: Facing the Challenges Head-on Tanzania”. 2009. The Institute of Finance Management. www.ngopulse.org/sites/default/files/tanzania_thetha_report_ict4d.pdf (accessed January 7, 2013).

Personal Communications

³³

Bohn, Andrea. University of Illinois, January 8, 2013. Email: [abohn@illinois.edu]

Bruno, Richard, African Institute for Capacity Development, December 26, 2012.

Cruise, Heather, UC Davis, January 9 2013. Email: [heatheracruise@gmail.com]

Jaribi, Sultan Hussain, CAHNET (Community Animal Health Network) - Tanzania, January 4, 2013.

Kaaya, Janet, Division of Research & Development, Ministry of Agriculture Food Security &

Cooperatives, January 2, 2013.

Madubi, Marcely, Winrock International, January 10, 2013.

Maselle, Naomi, Office Manager Tanzania Telecenters Network (TTN) and director of CROMABU telecenter, January 10, 2013.

Mtweve, Nestor, Diocese director for Caritas and Njombe Development office (NDO), January 5, 2013.

Vogt, Kees, Winrock International, January 6, 2013.

Wolking, David, One Health Institute - Wildlife Health Center, University of California, Davis, January 4, 2013.

33Phone call communication, except email where indicated.

Appendix C: Current Promising ICT Initiatives in Tanzania

Community Knowledge Centre (CKC) project from World Vision Tanzania (WVT), http://beta.wvi.org/tanzania

Status: Ongoing

ICTs employed Profit actors Non-profit and/or public actors Business model

- Internet King'ori Area development Programme

of World Vision Tanzania (Donor) (Ms Karen Schick and Jurgen Hinderer from Germany)

Donor-funded

Services offered End-users Intermediary Y/N How it works

- Provision of timely information on farming, weather, crop prices and market in general.

- Free internet services, library facilities and secretarial amenities

17 Villages in Meru district, in the first stage of the project.

Y (Center staff when needed) Community Knowledge Centres (CKC) are established in remote parts of the country and provide access to information services. CKC are provided with a set of computers connect to the internet to which farmers can access for free.

Contact Information References, articles Comments

Tim Andrews

WVT National Director

P.O. Box 6070, Arusha, Tanzania Tel: +255 27 549252/58

Fax: +255 27 2549259

Tanzania Daily News (Dar es Salaam) Article “Tanzania: World Vision Takes ICT to Villages”

By Marc Nkwame, 24 February 2012.

http://allafrica.com/stories/20120224091 4.html

It started in 2012 with the first center in the King’ori village, Meru district. More centers to be established.

Crop Protection Compendium, www.cabi.org Ongoing

ICTs employed Profit actors Non-profit and/or public actors

Business model

- Multimedia tool - CABI International, including the

support from more than 50 organization around the world.

Donor-funded

Services offered End-users Intermediary Y/N How it Works

- Software used to identify disease and pests

- Printouts of

pest/disease information in local languages.

Local Farmers Extension agen

Yes; extension agents CPC is created by CAB international and is used worldwide by crop protection specialists, extension workers, quarantine officers, plant breeders and policy makers, as well as farmers.

Contact Information References, articles Comments

support@cabi.org compend@cabi.org

http://ictupdate.cta.int/en/Feature- Articles/The-CPC-a-multimedia-tool-to- identify-pests/%2869%29/1051279925

It looks like a great tool for extension people to use to identify the disease or pest. Project still continues and is also available on the web.

Health for Animals and Livelihood Improvement (HALI) –Surveillance and prevention of zoonotic diseases in livestock, http://haliproject.wordpress.com/

Status: To be implement in June 2013

ICTs employed Profit actors Non-profit and/or public actors Business model

- Cellphone Cellphone company

provider

- Livestock climate change CRSP

“Adapting livestock systems to climate change”. Colorado State University (Donor)

- Friends of Ruaha Society (FORS) (Donor).

- Wildlife Health Center and Executive Director of the One Health Institute, School of Veterinary Medicine,

University of California, Davis (Partner) - Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Public Health. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania (Partner)

- District Veterinary office and Livestock Extension Agents.

- National Parks (Partner)

- Veterinary Investigation Centers of Tanzania (Partner)

- Village executive officers (Partner) - Pastoral leaders’ councils (Partner)

The program Livestock change CRSP provided a seed grant. Users (pastoralists) will pay for the phone calls made and text messages received.

Services offered End-users Intermediary Y/N How it works

- Remote disease diagnostic system (automatic)

- Livestock and human health information - Disease monitoring survaillance

Pastoralists; 160

“households” during the pilot phase.

It is expected to include villagers in the future.

N 1.5 year-long pilot phase to start in June 2013

in the Ruaha ecosystem. HALI will provide pastoralist “households” with cellphones. If they see a sick animal, they can call and access to the automatic remote disease diagnostic system. The remote system follows a

“diagnostic tree” developed by UCD. The software was developed by SUA.

Contact Information References, articles Comments

Health for Animals and Livelihood Improvement (HALI) –Surveillance and prevention of zoonotic diseases in livestock, http://haliproject.wordpress.com/

Status: To be implement in June 2013

David J. Wolking

One Health Institute - Wildlife Health Center University of California, Davis

Phone: +1 415 690 9955; +1 530 341 3507 Skype: djwolking; Email: djwolk@gmail.com

Personal communication 01/04/2013 - The system works in Swahili that pastoralists can understand, but their primary tongues are different.

Sauti ya wakulima ("The voice of the farmers" in Kiswahili), http://sautiyawakulima.net Status: Ongoing ICTs employed Profit actors Non-profit and/or public actors Business model - Cellphone (GPS, images

and voice recording).

- Internet (3G, to distribute information)

- The North-South Center, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Zurich (ETHZ) (Donor)

- Extension Officer (Coordinator) - The Department of Botany, University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) (Scientific support)

- Z-Node: The Zurich Node of the Planetary Collegium. Institute of Cultural Studies, University of Applied Arts, Zurich (Scientific support)

grant-based

Services offered End-users Intermediary Y/N How it works

- Audiovisual material of agricultural practices, observations regarding changes in climate and related issues, and farmers’

interviews.

Farmers, number unknown/unreported

Yes, the core group (5 women and 5 men)

This is a collaborative knowledge base created by farmers from the Chambezi region of the Bagamoyo District in Tanzania. Farmers use smartphones to gather audiovisual material, using the open source application “OjoVoz”.

Images and voice recordings are then published on the Internet.

Five men and five women meet weekly at the agricultural station in Chambezi to view and listen to the posts from the previous week. Two

Sauti ya wakulima ("The voice of the farmers" in Kiswahili), http://sautiyawakulima.net Status: Ongoing

smartphones are passed on to other participants, as shared tools for communication. The smartphones are

equipped with GPS modules and an application that makes it easy to send pictures and sounds to the Internet.

Farmers hope that, by communicating their observations to extension officers and scientific researchers, they can participate in the design of new strategies for adaptation.

Contact Information References, articles Comments

Project founder:

Eugenio Tisselli, Email: cubo23@yahoo.com Contact form on website:

www.sautiyawakulima.net/research/contact/

Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/sautiyawakulima

Website:

http://sautiyawakulima.net/bagamoyo/ab out.php?l=1

Blog:

www.sautiyawakulima.net/research/

- The project was also present in the Kinondoni district but it stopped due lack of funding.

- The project idea is based on the “Megafone Project”, an initiative started in 2003 in several parts of the world. This project would invite groups of people to express their experiences and opinions through face-to-face meetings and mobile phones for audiovisual material.

The phones would act as “digital megaphones”

(from http://megafone.net)

Tigo Kilimo Status: Ongoing

ICTs employed Profit actors Non-profit and/or public actors Business model

- SMS - Tigo Tanzania (mobile

phone operator) - Nuru Infocomm (Application Services Provider: currently provide high speed fibre access on

- TechnoServe - GSM Association - Government, university,

nonprofit and private partners including: Tanzania Meteorological Association (government); Sokoine University; Rural Urban Development Initiatives (non

Delivers real-time information on weather and farming tips via SMS.

Partners provide information, connections to smallholder farmers and revenue streams

Seacom and last mile solutions, SMS

applications services for Premium SMS, and applications using mobile communications

technology)

profit). such as advertising that can

make the product sustainable.

Services offered End-users? (Type and estimated number)

Intermediary Y/N ? Other Notes

- Real-time info on market prices, weather forecast and agronomy tips on crops via SMS

Piloted the first version of the product, a text- messaging service, in June 2012 with only 200 farmers. This limited version went “viral” and reached more 10,000 people in less than two months. The full version was launched in

November 2012 to deliver information to a target goal of 500,000 smallholder farmers in Tanzania.

No Farmers can access the

service by dialing *148*14#

Contact Information URL References, articles Comments

- TechnoServe International Headquarters Washington, DC (202) 785-4515 technoserve@tns.org

http://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/interview- with-tigo-tanzania-on-launching-an-agri-vas/

http://www.technoserve.org/blog/a-growing-lifeline-mobile- technologies-in-agricultural-development#.UOR2Nonjmz5 An article about lessons learned from the pilot:

Technoserve seeks to develop financing

models where the costs and rewards are shared among partners at all stages of the value chain, thus building the commercial case for these

- Yaya Ndjore is Project manager for Tigo Kilimo service at Tigo Tanzania.

http://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/tigo-and- technoserve-pilot-tigo-kilimo-service-first-lessons-learned

mobile solutions to ensure they can be offered in the future without support from donors and development catalysts.

mAgri/mfarmer, www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/programmes/magri/mfarmer-initiative on-going in other countries/ to be implemented in Tanzania

ICTs employed Profit actors Non-profit and/or public actors Business model

- mobile - GSMA

- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - USAID

To date, focus has been on engagement with mobile operators and their partners to prove the market opportunity of agricultural extension services through mobile to smallholder farmers and to understand which business models are most suitable.

Services offered End-users Intermediary Y/N How it works

- Provides support to mobile service providers, in

partnership with public and private sector agriculture organizations, to facilitate the creation of scalable, replicable and commercially sustainable agricultural information services.

2 pilot projects in India and Kenya, benefitting over 1.5 million farmers in the two countries.

Yes, mAgri is an umbrella organization that partners to provide funding and guidance to local ITC mobile projects.

The GSMA Mobile for Development accelerates economic, environmental and social evolution through mobile technology.

Within the Mobile for Development, the mAgri Programme exists to catalyse the deployment of mobile solutions benefiting the agriculture sector.

Contact Information References, articles Comments

magri@gsm.org mFarmer@gsm.org

Conducted under USAID. Very throughout reports and information about technical service design, marketing, and commercial business models. Definitely a good starting reference for

any players.

Farmer Voice Radio, www.farmervoice.org In Tanzania since 2011, after success in Kenya and Malawi projects ( began in 2010) ICTs employed Profit actors Non-profit and/or public actors Business model

● radio

● cell phone

none Donors:

● Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

● American Institutes for Research participating partners:

● Kilosa Community radio, Kilosa

● Radio Uzima , Dodoma

● Ruangwa community radio, Ruangw

● BomaHai Community radio, Moshi

● Mahenge Community radio, Mahenge

● Radio Maria - Dar es salaam

● SUA TV

● Habari Maalum

● TAFRI

● National and Local Agricultural Radio Advisory Committees

● government

Funded via grants plus trade agreements;

intention of the trade agreements within the consortium is to eventually become self- sustaining.

The consortium permits function without direct operational funding, on the basis that each partner contributes and receives benefits. For example, cooperating radio stations have committed more than 6,900 hours per year of free airtime, while governmental or farmer associations have assigned extension officers to work with FVR at no cost.

Services offered End-users Intermediary Y/N How it works

- Online agricultural extension audio organized by crop

- Radio-based ag extension

Six radio stations in Tanzania, as well as several in neighboring

Yes; Farmer Voice organizes enabling partners, including government extension agents, an advisory committee, and radio stations, to make this service available.

National and Local Agricultural Radio Advisory Committees produce quarterly production agendas for each station.

FarmerVoice specifically states their focus on