Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Review
The Revolution of Mobile Phone-Enabled Services for
Agricultural Development (m-Agri Services) in Africa:
The Challenges for Sustainability
Ezinne M. Emeana *, Liz Trenchard and Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry CV8 3LG, UK;
apy157@coventry.ac.uk (L.T.); ab6340@coventry.ac.uk (K.D.-S.)
*Correspondence: emeanae@uni.coventry.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-75-3528-1953
Received: 26 November 2019; Accepted: 2 January 2020; Published: 8 January 2020
Abstract:
The provision of information through mobile phone-enabled agricultural information
services (m-Agri services) has the potential to revolutionise agriculture and significantly improve
smallholder farmers’ livelihoods in Africa. Globally, the benefits of m-Agri services include facilitating
farmers’ access to financial services and sourcing agricultural information about input use, practices,
and market prices. There are very few published literature sources that focus on the potential
benefits of m-Agri services in Africa and none of which explore their sustainability. This study,
therefore, explores the evolution, provision, and sustainability of these m-Agri services in Africa.
An overview of the current landscape of m-Agri services in Africa is provided and this illustrates
how varied these services are in design, content, and quality. Key findings from the exploratory
literature review reveal that services are highly likely to fail to achieve their intended purpose or be
abandoned when implementers ignore the literacy, skills, culture, and demands of the target users.
This study recommends that, to enhance the sustainability of m-Agri services, the implementers
need to design the services with the users involved, carefully analyse, and understand the target
environment, and design for scale and a long-term purpose. While privacy and security of users
need to be ensured, the reuse or improvement of existing initiatives should be explored, and projects
need to be data-driven and maintained as open source. Thus, the study concludes that policymakers
can support the long-term benefit of m-Agri services by ensuring favourable policies for both users
and implementers.
Keywords:
m-Agri services; cell phones; smallholder farmers’ livelihood; sustainability challenges;
strategies for improvement; policy implications; Africa
1. Introduction
An extraordinary digital revolution has helped to drive global development with technological
progress, price reduction, and infrastructural deployment resulting in improved access and connectivity
for much of the world’s populace [
1
]. The impact of this digital revolution is unevenly distributed,
while many studies highlight the positive impacts and stress that these technological changes have
the potential to enhance livelihoods in the global south. In Africa, for example [
2
–
6
], some studies
question their impact and sustainability [
2
,
7
–
11
]. Digital technologies popularly known as information
and communication technologies (ICTs) are comprised of various technologies that are used to aid
information exchange and communication. These technologies include hardware (e.g., computers and
mobile phones) and software (e.g., Internet facilities and media for information transmission) [12,13].
The use of information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) has continued to
evolve [
14
–
17
] with increasing attention on their use for agricultural development in Africa [
18
–
23
].
Sustainability 2020,12, 485; doi:10.3390/su12020485 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 2 of 27
ICTs contribution to development varies according to the various disciplines and their intended
aim [
14
,
24
,
25
]. However, improving the long-term impact of these technologies also requires an
understanding of human-computer interactions (HCI) [
26
]. HCI for development (HCI4D) is a
sub-discipline of HCI, which focuses specifically on the relationship between humans and computers
in the context of international development [
27
]. In essence, while both ICT4D and HCI4D are
concerned with information technology and human development, ICT4D is concerned with the process
of technology development and impact as well as the design of the technology [
14
] whereas HCI4D
focuses on the interaction between humans and information technology and the improvement of
this relationship [
27
]. Hence, this study sits between ICT4D and HCI4D and is concerned with the
sustainability and long-term impacts of future agricultural development projects.
Farmers’ increasing access to agricultural information in some parts of Africa has been linked to
the evolution and uptake of digital technologies [
28
–
30
]. Because agriculture is location-specific, it is
important that farmers get tailored advice on agricultural practices, input use, accurate local weather
predictions, and real-time prices and market information. Harnessing the growth of Internet use and
associated digital technologies such as the mobile phone can help farmers retrieve the information
they need as well as overcome constraints faced by the traditional agricultural extension and advisory
services. Such technologies can facilitate transformative agricultural development such as collaborative
agricultural knowledge exchange and learning [4,31,32].
The digital technology age has resulted in many accessible software applications aimed at farmers
and other stakeholders in the agricultural sector [
33
]. Although many digital innovations aimed for
agricultural development and ones that can help enhance the lives of rural people are developing
rapidly, there is a lack of good evidence to support the impact of such technologies on development.
What is needed is holistic, rigorous, and quantitative reports on the ways in which these initiatives aid
development and sustainability [
32
]. According to Yonazi et al. [
34
], the strategic application of ICTs
to Africa’s agricultural sector offers the best opportunity for socio-economic growth of smallholder
farmers. Although numerous ICT-based initiatives have been implemented in different parts of
Africa for the uptake and improvement of agricultural practices, this study is focused on the mobile
phone-enabled application initiative(s) for agriculture known as m-Agri services. In the context of
this study, ‘m-Agri service’ is used to characterise any mobile phone-enabled application targeted to
the needs of the agricultural sector and its stakeholders. These m-Agri services include electronic
information and/or functions that are accessed through mobile phones (be they feature or smartphones).
These services might include banking facilities, social networking platforms, or information such as
market prices. Services can be delivered in a variety of formats including graphics, videos, images,
audio recordings, and text. Smartphones specifically provide functionalities that enable users to access
mobile and web applications, which can facilitate active engagement [35].
The increasing penetration of mobile networks as well as availability of mobile phones and
their facilities have created significant improvements in the ability to reach remote, dispersed,
and under-served farmers irrespective of their environment and social status by facilitating access to
extension services, agricultural information, and financial services [
11
,
29
,
31
,
32
,
36
,
37
]. A wide range
of agricultural information can be provided including data on inputs, best agricultural practices,
transport, and market prices [
38
]. Baumüller [
36
] identified two key areas that can be impacted upon by
m-Agri services. These are information and learning (e.g., through stakeholder networking platforms)
and mobile payments (e.g., virtual markets and supply chain management). Various m-Agri services
have been developed in the African region with the support of international donor agencies such as
the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), etc. These have
targeted areas that are characterised by weak infrastructure, limited access to market information,
and poor transportation systems [
39
]. While the developers of these m-Agri services and their funders
have often believed that these services hold great promise for enhancing target users’ livelihoods by
helping them to improve yields and provide fair market pricing opportunities, often their financial and
infrastructural stability are questionable and only a very few are able to stand the test of time [
39
–
41
].
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 3 of 27
The reasons and remedies for this gap are yet unclear, with the factual evidence of their
[m-Agri services] sustainability and long-term usage by the target users still being rare. Although
many m-Agri apps are created, many are short-lived, and few become financially self-sustaining
or widespread [
39
]. Some studies have focussed on the impact, effectiveness, farmers’ attitude,
empowerment, and challenges farmers face in using m-Agri service [
42
–
46
], while others argued from
the technical or funders’ perspective [
39
,
40
,
47
]. Baumüller [
40
] reported that the developers’ failure
to understand the context in which the farmers use these m-Agri services results in underutilisation
of such services. Danes et al. [
39
] acknowledged that the number of successful m-Agri services is
limited. Hence, concrete information is needed about the lessons learned, to inform the design and
techniques of future efforts [
47
]. Efforts to design, produce, and evaluate appropriate m-Agri services
for developing countries are naturally multidisciplinary. Thus, the research identified in this present
study was obtained from a wide range of disciplines including sustainable agriculture, international
development, and ICT for development (ICT4D) [
39
,
40
,
48
]. Furthermore, Danes et al. [
39
] recounted
the willingness among agricultural stakeholders and application developers to collaborate more and
exchange ideas on best practice. Danes et al. [
39
] also propose that developers should consider projects
with open software, set up learning communities, develop indigenous scaled agricultural content,
make existing data available, and connect the poorest to mobile networks. However, addressing the
sustainability challenges requires a holistic understanding of the social, economic, and environmental
impact and/or sustainability of the m-Agri services with a focus on the wider problems of designing,
developing, and deploying the service(s) to the disadvantaged (rural or underserved) areas [
49
].
Considering this approach, more attention needs to be given to the target users’ context and aspirations
(e.g., their needs, social and physical constraints, etc.) [49–51].
While some other authors have also raised concerns about the environmental sustainability (e.g.,
the energy demand, material resource use, and emissions) of such initiatives [
48
,
52
], this present review
explores the challenges that can impede the long-term sustainability of m-Agri services, in terms of
their longevity, financial stability, and relevance, which are key issues to be addressed when scaling
up from the pilot stage of pilot projects [
40
]. Additionally, the review identifies opportunities for
policymakers to enhance the sustainable development of m-Agri initiatives in Africa. By doing so,
this review answers the following research questions.
•
What are the current trends and progress in the use of m-Agri services for enhancing agriculture
and smallholder farmers’ livelihoods in Africa?
•
How can all relevant stakeholders involved in design, development, deployment and use, approach
the challenges of m-Agri service(s) for sustainability?
•Are there specific functionalities for the m-Agri services that can enhance sustainability?
•What should the role of the policymakers be in promoting m-Agri sustainability?
Having outlined the specific aim and objectives of this review study, the remaining sections describe
the conceptual background to the study including the concept of sustainability, the methodology
adopted to identify relevant materials for the review, a summary of the key findings of the literature
surveyed, and conclusions, which includes recommendations for future designs.
2. Conceptualising Sustainability in This Review
Sustainability is a widely used but contested term that has gained notable attention in recent
times especially in social and technological science sectors such as policy-oriented research, human
computer interaction, ICT for development, and business development [
48
,
49
,
53
–
55
]. The use of the
word ‘sustainability’ as a broader concept implies ‘meeting the needs and aspirations of the present
generation without undermining the ability of nature to regenerate for future generations’ needs [
56
].
In this context, sustainability refers to the environmental, social, cultural, technological, political,
institutional, and economic consequences linked with the way development-based projects are designed
and implemented [48,49,53,57]. Hence, looking at sustainability from the m-Agri services’ developer,
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 4 of 27
funder, and target users’ perspectives implies that they [as the actors] must ensure to enhance the
socioeconomic and environmental sustainability of the given project. Additionally, the continuation of
the benefits of m-Agri services after the implementation or launching need to be ensured. Accordingly,
funders should be concerned about the underlying cost [social, economic, and environmental] of
any intended m-Agri service and fund the services that have a well-defined sustainability plan in
place. This means that integrating sustainability principles in any ongoing m-Agri project can be
an efficient way of ensuring a long-term impact. However, from the implementers or developers’
point of view, this means that they will need to continue to perform and deliver services to the target
users (farmers and other agricultural stakeholders) even after assessing the impact of the project.
In other words, from the perspective of this review, sustainability requires all stakeholders involved to
continuously maintain ownership and hosting of the m-Agri services especially services that have a
significant positive impact on smallholder farmers’ livelihood even after the funding and other forms
of intervention have ended. At the same time, ensure that the service(s) lessen their (smallholder
farmers) burdens and not contribute to their poverty.
Initially, this review was conceived as an overview of the literature associated with the development
and use of m-Agri services for sustainable agriculture and developing countries and was concerned with
the challenges to sustainability of m-Agri services in terms of their continued functioning, their longevity,
and usefulness. The interaction between humans and interactive technologies in the developing world
is also a discipline in its own right, known as human-computer interaction for development (HCI4D).
The literature associated with HCI4D and ICT4D (information and communication technology for
development) in many respects comes to the same conclusions regarding the need for better technically
and culturally appropriate designs as the literature on m-Agri apps for sustainable agriculture [
58
].
However, it also raises further questions about what is meant by sustainability and how the impacts of
interactive technologies on sustainable development should be evaluated [38,59].
In this context, sustainability can be understood in two different ways [
51
,
59
]. First, is the m-Agri
service in itself sustainable? This is described by Remy et al. [
59
] as ‘sustainability in design’ (SiD).
For the m-Agri apps identified in the review the discussion of m-Agri app’s sustainability was often
framed in terms of its longevity, financial stability, and options for scaling up [
40
]. Software such as
m-Agri services can be described as ‘weightless.’ This means they do not themselves have a direct
impact on the environment, but they can be designed to be efficient for users, i.e., to work offline in
regions with poor mobile coverage and power networks [
58
]. The second way in which sustainability
should be considered is the effect or impact that an m-Agri service can have on sustainability [
48
,
59
].
Does it encourage more sustainable behaviours? Is there any impact on the sustainability of real-world
practices in the agricultural system targeted [
51
,
59
]? This is described as ‘sustainability through design’
(StD) by Remy et al. [59].
Although sustainability should be evaluated in a holistic manner incorporating environmental,
economic, and societal impacts, this is not often the case [
60
]. Incorporating these three pillars into an
evaluation is time-consuming, and, more often than not, evaluations focus on one pillar only, and most
frequently on environmental sustainability [
53
]. Although several authors including Toyama [
61
] and
Remy et al. [
59
] have produced frameworks for evaluating the sustainability of ICT interventions,
there is still considerable debate on the approach to evaluation in a human-computer interaction
for development (HCI4D) [
51
,
53
,
59
]. One of the key issues with evaluating sustainability of ICT in
the developing world is the question of who decides which criteria should be used for evaluation
and which values are important. Ideas and interpretations of sustainability depend on culture and
context [
62
]. This may be why evaluation of impact on sustainability is often missing in HCI4D/ICT4D
research [
59
]. In their review, Brynjarsdottir et al. [
51
] found that almost half of the HCI studies
included no evaluation whatsoever.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 5 of 27
3. Methodology
This analysis adopts a scoping review methodology as described by Arksey and O’Malley [
63
]
and focuses on published literature that relates to mobile phone-enabled applications for agricultural
development and smallholder farmers’ livelihood improvement in Africa. The scoping review method
is less restrictive than a systematic review. It allows the redefinition of the literature search criteria
as the researcher becomes familiar with the existing literature on the subject area [
63
]. During the
review process, searches were made through the Web of Science, Scopus, AgEcon, JSTOR, Science
Direct, ASSIA, Google, and Google Scholar to identify relevant publications using the following terms.
•‘mobile phone application’ AND ‘agriculture development’ OR ‘digital innovation’;
•‘smartphone application’ AND ‘sustainability’ OR ‘agriculture’;
•‘mobile or smartphone’ AND ‘farmers’ OR ‘smallholder farmers’ livelihood’;
•‘agriculture information’ AND ‘farmers’ livelihood development’;
•‘smart farming’ AND ‘smallholder farmers’ OR ‘m-Agri’;
•‘mobile application’ AND ‘m-Agri finance’ AND ‘services’;
•‘mobile application’ AND ‘m-Agri’ AND ‘challenges’;
•‘ICT for sustainability’ OR ‘ICT4S’ AND ‘ICT for development’ OR ‘ICT4D’;
•‘Human Computer Interaction for development’ OR ‘HCI4D’ AND ‘sustainability’.
After skimming through the published titles and their abstracts, only relevant articles published
in English within an African context were selected for further review. Articles that excluded human
interaction and focused on non-human involvement such as management of equipment and connecting
to the Internet of things were not included for detailed review. Articles included were published
after the year 2000, as that was when mobile and Internet facilities began to expand significantly in
Africa. Furthermore, articles that specifically cover m-Agri services that disseminate agricultural
information, provide financial services, and facilitate access to input and output markets for agricultural
stakeholders in Africa were included. In addition, a snowball strategy based on a thorough review
of each article’s references was used to identify other relevant peer-reviewed literature. However,
because of the limited number of relevant peer-reviewed literature, none covered the sustainability
aspect of the m-Agri services. Grey literature was also included, which presented m-Agri services that
have impacted on farmers’ livelihoods, provided they were within the year of publication range and
geographic coverage.
In reporting these review findings, the information retrieved from the literature was grouped
into themes that correspond to answering the research questions. After the inclusion and exclusion
exercise, a total of 64 relevant artefacts were identified. They include 26 journal articles, 29 reports
[grey literature], and 9 webpages as listed in Table 1. To complement this literature search, a search for
m-Agri services currently available in Africa was also carried out using the main iOS and Android
app stores. This first aimed to authenticate the m-Agri services reviewed in the literature search and
also retrieved other English language applications targeted for farmers and agriculture. The m-Agri
services identified are shown in Table 2. Each application’s platform was searched to identify the
specific location of such an application and the user reviews were checked to determine whether
or not the application was still functioning. Those m-Agri services that appeared to be functional
were compiled in Table 2with a summary of their purpose and their location indicated. Although
the two most popular app stores were investigated, this list may not be exhaustive as there may be
other applications available that were not present in the databases accessed. Examples of m-Agri
services from Table 2discussed in the text are shown in italics. Table 3provides further data for those
apps for which this could be found. This includes the date of the launch, number of downloads,
and number of average reviews. These data give a crude measure of longevity and user satisfaction.
Without full access to the m-Agri services, it was not possible to evaluate other measures of quality
and sustainability.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 7 of 27
Table 2. Survey of currently functioning mobile phone-based m-Agri services available in Africa in 2018/19 (accessed between January 2018 and October 2019).
Mobile Apps Inventor/Founders Country/Location of Use Description
iCow Kenyan farmer, Su Kahumbu Kenya
SMS and voice-only mobile app. Farmers are sent information on the best
dairy practices. Allows farmers to register their cows, and to receive
individualised text messages on their mobile phones, including advice for
veterinary care and feeding schedules, sends prompts to farmers to collect
and store milk within the days of a cow’s cycle, a database of experts,
and updated market rates on cattle prices [64,87].
Vet Africa
A Scotland based tech company—Cojengo, founded by
Craig Taylor and Iain Collins in partnership
with Microsoft
Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania
An image-based user interface app provides diagnostic tools and disease
surveillance data for livestock disease and recommends appropriate
medications for farm animals. Helps farmers monitor and record animal
data [87].
M-Farm Kenyans: Linda Kwamboka, Susan Oguya, and Jamila
Abass are co-founders Kenya and Ghana
Delivers price transparency and access to markets. Provides updates to
farmers on current prices of goods across the country and a networking
platform for farmers to sell their produce wholesale. Connects local
farmers directly to suppliers and provides access for farm inputs [87].
Esoko
A team of local and international professional in Ghana
Nine African countries
Connects projects, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), businesses,
and the government to farmers. Formerly known as TradeNet provides
agricultural content, marketing, advisory, and monitoring services for
farmers and potential investors [65–67].
Agro-Hub Agro-Hub was developed by a Cameroonian
business venture Cameron
Agro-Hub employs social network, short messaging service (SMS),
and the Internet to source, manage and disseminate information on all
areas of agriculture [65,113]
Agri-wallet
Dodore Kenya Ltd. founded by Ad Rietberg and Sijmen
de Hoogh Kenya
Agri-wallet is a mobile purse that smallholder farmers use to manage their
business finances and can borrow money to spend on agricultural inputs
such as fertiliser and seeds [87].
Cocoa Link
Developed by Farmerline, which promotes
entrepreneurship in partnership with Hershey and
World Cocoa Foundation
Ghana
Delivers farming practice information from agricultural experts to farmers
in English and local languages at no cost [13,65].
Kilimo Salama Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture and
Kenyan telecom operator, Safaricom Kenya
Provides up-to-date and full climate and weather information to farmers
and sustainable agricultural practices to increase productivity, ensure food
security, and protect their crops during bad weather [68].
Kuza Doctor Backpack farmers in Kenya Kenya
Provides access to information on crop growth, soil, and answer to general
farming questions to help farmers grow better crops by employing
environmentally-friendly practices [87].
Modisar
Agric Software Development Start-up Company located
in Gaborone, Botswana Botswana
Enable farmers to keep and access their farm records, cattle herds, farm
costs, and sales. Provides advice to farmers on animal vaccinations, feed,
nutrition, and finance [87].
Hello tractor A team of business entrepreneurs Nigeria Provides access to low-cost tractors that farmers can buy or rent using
their mobile phones [114].
Haller app Haller foundation Kenya
Provide farming instructions to the farmers on how to manage soil fertility
and maintain beehives [69].
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 8 of 27
Table 2. Cont.
Mobile Apps Inventor/Founders Country/Location of Use Description
M-Shamba M-shamba social enterprise Kenya
Provide information about crop and poultry management practices for the
small-scale farmers. Allows farmers to track farm activities such as their
revenues and expenses [69].
WeFarm
Originally created by Kenny Ewan, Claire Rhodes,
and Jim Rhodes, and was developed as a pilot project
from within the Cafedirect Producers’ Foundation (now
called Producers Direct)
Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda
Provides free crop and livestock management practices. Especially advice
on how to manage diseases and new practices [69,115].
M-Samaki No details Kenya Provides advice on fish farming about how to manage pond health and
feed as well as harvest and marketing [69].
Senekela Established by Orange-Mali Mali
Provides advice on available agricultural products, weather forecast,
and market prices, which allow farmers to market their produce in better
conditions and improve their productivity [116].
e-Wallet Established by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development Nigeria
Provides information about where and how to buy fertilizer and the exact
amount sold, which allows farmers to compare prices [70].
Tigo Kilimo Provided my mobile network operator Tigo Tanzania
An agricultural value-added service that provides information for 10 crops
through unstructured supplementary service data (USSD), SMS, voice,
and helpline for the farmers.
EZ-Farm IBM Research—Africa Dr Kala Fleming Kenya Provides farmers with information on facilities for remote farming water
management.
AgroTech A programme run by Grameen Foundation and its
partners Digital Green Ghana
Enables the government and private company field personnel to
understand and analyse farmers’ needs and crop history quickly and
timely, to deliver agricultural advice, and to procure loans to purchase
farm supplies such as fertilisers and seeds.
Lima Links
SANGONet, a South African NGO, and International
Development Enterprises (iDE), with $200,000 in initial
funding from the Gates Foundation.
Zambia Provides a sort of ‘live’ market price information on horticulture and
connections to markets for smallholder farmers.
AGMIS (Infotrade) Infotrade Uganda
Aggregates market price information from 35 major districts in Uganda for
48 agricultural products, trends, and price movements. Price data is
collected three times a week, analysed, and disseminated to the farmers.
Crowdyvest (Farmcrowdy)
Team of individuals with experience and expertise in
information technology management, e-commerce and
financial management supported by Syngenta and
ASTC (Agricultural Training Centre), Vom and Plateau
State Notore Seeds
Nigeria
Supports small farm sponsorship, provides improved seeds, farm inputs,
training on modern farming techniques, and also provide a market for the
sale of farm produce for farmers.
Crop Monitoring Service
(CROPMON)
Developed by Geodata for Agriculture and Water
Facility, Netherlands with four Dutch and five
Kenyan partners
Kenya
CROPMON develops and makes available information that help farmers
to make improved farm management decisions during the growing season.
The information given is based on real-time satellite imagery informing
them of the growth and growth status of their crops.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 9 of 27
Table 2. Cont.
Mobile Apps Inventor/Founders Country/Location of Use Description
FarmDrive Rita Kimani and Peris Bosire Kenya
Connects smallholder farmers to loans and financial management tools
through their mobile phones. Closes the critical data gap that prevents
financial institutions from lending to creditworthy smallholder farmers.
MyAgro (One Acre Fund) Anushka Ratnayake, One Acre Fund Mali, Senegal Helps the farmers save money gradually in smaller amounts to cover the
cost of their basic farm needs such as buying seeds, fertiliser, and training.
Fertiliser Optimiser Tool (FOT)
CABI’s OFRA programme, funded by the Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) 13 countries in Africa
Provides free access to advice on fertiliser use for farmers and extension
workers. The app runs in an offline mode allowing users to perform
optimisation calculations in the field and utilises data on crops grown,
area planted, fertiliser cost, management, and expected crop sales, etc. to
calculate the most profitable combinations of fertilisers to use.
NARO beans, Common Cassava
Diseases & Control, NARO Maize
Production
National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) Uganda Provides information on: (1) bean cultivation, (2) common cassava
diseases and control, and (3) maize production for the farmers.
Pannar Sprout
Developed by Pannar Seed, a South African seed group
founded in 1958, which is one of the largest field crop
seed producers and suppliers in Africa
South Africa and some other African
nations
Provides technical advice for grain farmers. A new function has been
added, which is known as PlantDr for help with crop diseases.
Khula South African digital company in Randburg South Africa
Provides mentorship for farmers and connects them to customers, better
access to logistics, and source for low cost farm inputs through a group
purchase.
Agripredict Developed by three individuals (Patrick Sikalinda,
Cassandra Mtine, and Mwiza Simbeye) Zambia Provides information that help farmers to identify crop diseases, predict
pest infestations, and weather conditions.
uLima uLima Limited Kenya
Provides access to crop and livestock management information, weather
and market price information, and customised crop and livestock
calendars for farmers.
AgTag Magazine app South Africa
Provides written articles, videos, and audio on crops, livestock, equipment,
water, and soil management as well as agro-processing.
Nuru (Plant Village)
Developed by Penn State University researchers in
collaboration with UN FAO and Consultative Group of
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Nuru is
incorporated into the Plant Village app.
Many African countries
Helps farmers to diagnose crop diseases of crops like cassava, maize,
wheat, and potatoes in the field without an Internet connection. The app
interfaces with the FAMEWS app to upload data collected from the field.
For example, the app help farmers to validate data on fall armyworm to
the national fall armyworm focal points and database.
RiceAdvice Developed by AfricaRice and CGIAR under the name
RiceAdvice. 22 African countries Provides farmers with field-specific crop management guidelines for rice
production
Agrix Tech No details Cameroon Detects crop diseases at a primary stage and proposes treatment with the
use of artificial intelligence.
Labaroun Kassoua
Labaroun Kassoua in Niger is one of the mAgri services
supported by Orange in Africa Niger Offers information and advice on agricultural techniques, weather,
and access to markets and financial services for farmers.
mAgri, Côte d’Ivoire mAgri in Côte d’Ivoire is one of the mAgri services
supported by Orange in Africa Côte d’Ivoire Provides information and advice on weather, agricultural approaches,
access to markets, and financial services.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 10 of 27
Table 2. Cont.
Mobile Apps Inventor/Founders Country/Location of Use Description
Naafa Buudu Supported by Orange in Africa Burkina Faso Offers farmers advice on weather, market prices, financial services,
and agricultural techniques.
Cow Tribe Cow tribe technology company based in Ghana Ghana Provides subscription based and on-demand animal vaccines and other
services to last mile farmers.
Connected Farmer
Produced by the Connected Farmer Alliance, a
public-private partnership between U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and Vodafone
Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique
Targets to address the value chain management inefficiencies and increase
productivity of both the agribusinesses and the smallholder farmers who
supply them.
Survey 2018/19.
Table 3. Launch date, user reviews, and downloads of m-Agri services available in Africa in 2018/2019 (accessed between January 2018 and October 2019).
M-Agri Service Year Launched
App store/Google Play Metrics
Other Data
Average Reviewer Score
(Max Score =5) Number of Reviews Number of Downloads
Esoko 2008 no data no data no data
Agrohub 2009 4.7 7 1000+
M-Farm 2010 no data no data no data
Kilimo Salama 2010 4.7 21 1000+
M-Shamba 2010 4.9 38 100+Reports 685,460 farmers reached
iCow 2011 3.6 5 100+
MyAgro 2011 no data 2011 no data Reports 45,000 downloads
Senekela 2014 no data no data no data Reports 37,333 users
WeFarm 2014 no data no data no data Reports 1.9 million farmers joined
Farmdrive 2014 4.2 5 500+
mAgri, Côte d’Ivoire 2014 no data no data no data
HayVokra (HNI) 2014 no data no data no data
Bazar.mada 2014 no data no data no data
Hello tractor 2015 2.9 44 5000+
M-Samaki 2015 none no data no data
EZ-Farm 2015 no data no data no data
Pannar Sprout 2015 3.7 35 5000+
Crowdyvest (Farmcrowdy) 2016 3.8 221 50,000+Reports 25,000 users
Cow Tribe 2016 no data 2016 no data Reports 29,000 farmers in 119 communities
Fertiliser Optimiser Tool (FOT) 2016 5 5 1000+
Murimi Umlimi 2017 none 0 no data
uLima 2017 4.8 29 1000+Reports 20,000 users
Agri-wallet 2018 none no data 50+Reports 4000 farmers, 14 suppliers, and 25 buyers
CocoaLink 2018 5 16 5000+
Agripredict 2018 no data no data 22,000
Plant Village Nuru 2018 4.4 18 1000+
NARO beans 2018 4 1 100+
Common Cassava Diseases & Control 2018 none none 100+
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 11 of 27
Table 3. Cont.
M-Agri Service Year Launched
App store/Google Play Metrics
Other Data
Average Reviewer Score
(Max Score =5) Number of Reviews Number of Downloads
NARO Cage Aquaculture 2018 none none 500+
NARO Maize Production 2018 3.7 6 1000+
Agrix Tech 2019 no data no data n/a
Labaroun Kassoua 2011 (SMS) no data no data no data
LimaLinks 2011–2013, 2016 no data no data no data Pilot in 2011–2013 scaled up in 2016
CROPMON 2015–2019 no data no data no data
RiceAdvice c. 2016 4.6 23 1000+Reports 20,000+users
Modistar c.2014 no data no data no data
AgTag c.2014 4.5 74 5000+
Vet Africa no data 3.5 11 1000+
Kuza Doctor no data no data no data no data
Haller app no data no data no data no data
AgroTech no data no data no data no data Reports 500,687 users
AGMIS (Infotrade) no data no data no data no data
Khula no data no data no data 2000+
No data =no data found in app store, Facebook, Twitter, or website searches. none =no reviews or downloads recorded in app store. c.Year =indicates that the app is documented at this
date, but the launch date is not known.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 12 of 27
4. Results and Discussion
This review explored the progress of m-Agri services in contributing to the improvement of
livelihood of smallholder farmers and the challenges for their sustainability in Africa. In this section,
the findings that answered the fundamental questions that emerged from the study’s aim and objectives
are outlined into four overarching themes and are discussed accordingly.
4.1. An Overview of Current Trends in m-Agri Services
The increasing expansion and use of m-Agri services have created a trend in the agricultural
digital ecosystem, which consists of software platforms, thousands of developers, and millions of users.
Some such m-Agri services are available and distributed through platforms such as the app stores
for mobile and web apps and databases for short message and other related services. Table 2below
highlights existing functional m-Agri services in the African region. The list was correct at the time of
writing, even though it is acknowledged that, in the time taken for publication, some of the available
applications may no longer be fully functioning.
Globally, m-Agri services’ contribution has been to enhance the efficiency of the agricultural value
chain, as information delivered through m-Agri services can help farmers’ access to new technology or
inputs and assess its suitability as well as facilitate farmer-to-farmer/buyer relationships, how to manage
financial and production risk, and where to sell their produce [
36
,
38
]. Similarly, the m-Agri services
identified in this review had a positive contribution to improved smallholder farmers’ livelihood by
facilitating their access to financial services, which enables them to access and source agricultural
information as well as input and marketing services [
71
,
72
,
88
,
89
]. Thus, the following sub-sections
highlight the trends and progress made in these categories. The key trends include m-Agri financial
services, information and sharing, and input and marketing services. These are discussed in more
detail below.
4.1.1. M-Agri Financial Services
According to Mercy Corp [
88
], the transitioning to and use of m-Agri financial services by
smallholder farmers has increased safe and convenient transactions in many African countries.
These kinds of services open up opportunities for many smallholder farmers who are excluded from
mainstream financial services such as banking and insurance. Furthermore, the availability of loans
and repayment via such platforms increases farmers’ ability to manage their finances and investment
in agriculture as well as improve their relationship with bankers and other relevant agricultural
stakeholders [
29
,
73
,
90
]. For instance, farmers in Western Kenya with the help of One Acre Fund
can access Agri-Wallet, which is an m-Agri financial service that allows them to borrow money to
spend on their agricultural inputs and pay back their loans digitally. Thus, saving travelling costs to
extension offices and banks as well as improving time management and reduced cash carrying [
91
].
Significantly, digitising agricultural payments via mobile phones has the potential to improve security,
efficiency, and transparency. Particularly, there is an increasing number of initiatives, which aim
to enhance the m-Agri financial services’ value chain, especially in sub-Saharan Africa with major
attention in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, and other dynamic markets such as Ghana and the
Ivory Coast [
35
]. Examples of m-Agri finance apps include Labaroun Kassoua in Niger and FarmDrive
in Kenya. Accordingly, Mercy Corps [
88
] reported that more than 46% of farming households use
an m-Agri financial service product in Uganda and attested that this had resulted in an increase in
household incomes. This service can support the creation of economic identities for the farmers through
the transactional reports and records from their produce sales as well as for geolocations and farm
size, which creates full financial inclusion for their access to credit, savings accounts, and insurance
facilities [90].
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 13 of 27
4.1.2. M-Agri Information and Knowledge Sharing Services
According to Bedi [
71
], m-Agri services play a significant role in enhancing farmer access to
information because of their ability to support the retrieval of information from its repository at the
farmer’s convenience. Specifically, information and knowledge sharing can support better agricultural
practices and skills development among farmers, which results in increased productivity as well
as enables easier access to product certification requirements [
74
,
90
]. Baumüller [
29
] pointed out
that advice on farming practices is the most easily provided agricultural information for farmers
through mobile phone services. In addition to this, information on the weather forecast, monitoring,
and crop diseases can then better equip them in understanding and managing risks. Thus, this helps
them save and improve their productivity. For instance, the Senekela Orange initiative is a service
established in Mali that provides farmers’ access to updated agricultural advice such as stock
availability, product market prices, and weather predictions. Crowdsourcing information through
mobile phone applications, such as that provided by Nuru, a digital early warning network is helping
farmers to prevent the outbreak of cassava diseases in Tanzania [
92
]. In a CTA (Technical Centre for
Agricultural and Rural Cooperation) report, a similar service allows farmers to access real-time, location,
and specific information regarding their farming queries and providing advice regarding crop and
livestock management during the critical stages of development, which also aids learning [
93
]. Training
is the cornerstone of future agriculture and capacity building for farmers, with training information
content and research contributing to a rise in agricultural innovations. Potentially, innovations
can be disseminated and promoted among farmers more rapidly through m-Agri information and
knowledge-sharing platforms [
29
,
94
]. In an evaluation of the m-Agri service Tigo Kilimo in Tanzania,
carried out by GSMA [
89
], the attitudes and behaviour of users of the app were compared to non-users.
The results showed that Tigo Kilimo users were more willing to change their farming practices by
shifting from one cropping system to adopting diversification approaches in growing more varieties
of crops.
4.1.3. M-Agri Input and Marketing Services
Increasing globalisation and market deregulation in developing countries often results in pressure
on smallholder farmers to lower their prices. For farmers, greater awareness about the politics of
agricultural products’ pricing, marketing, and trade allows them to better deal with these pressures.
M-Agri services can provide them with timely access to information and better access to input and
output services [
72
]. Basically, farmers tend to be more receptive when information is tailored to
specific contexts to support their needs with the view of reducing cost as well as increasing efficiency
and productivity [
72
,
75
]. M-Agri services can facilitate the dissemination of information about input
suppliers and input prices as well as provide platforms for input trading and bargaining, which can
help farmers evaluate the profitability and obtain higher prices for produce [
29
,
76
]. Furthermore,
access to market pricing information is helping farmers improve their harvest planning. For instance,
the app m-farm helps farmers in Kenya to make informed decisions about the best harvest, selling
times, and pricing [
36
]. Besides allowing farmers to obtain market price information, the m-farm also
enable suppliers to publicise product information on special offers to the farmers [32].
Some studies in the African region affirmed that m-Agri interventions led to greater savings,
increase in produce sales, increase in household income, farmers’ confidence and trust, financial
security, farm management, increased access to inputs, increased bargaining power, and social cohesion
for smallholder farmers [
29
,
36
,
76
–
78
]. However, the type of solutions, range, and complexity vary,
as some providers offer complete platforms with multiple functionalities and others target single
or specific issues with the aim of improving smallholders’ livelihoods. The maintenance of these
acclaimed positive impacts requires a consistent and unified approach by the project initiators, service
developers, funders [public and private investors], implementers, researchers, Internet providers,
non-government agencies, policymakers, and the farmers. Hence, it is imperative to understand
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 14 of 27
the challenges that affect such initiatives as well as to comprehend the strategies that can improve
their sustainability.
4.2. The Challenges for M-Agri Services in Africa
This review further revealed that, despite the positive impacts and opportunities for m-Agri
service initiatives toward the enhancement of smallholder farmers’ livelihood in Africa, the reality is
that not all of these m-Agri apps are sustainable over the long term. According to Laurey’s [
92
], lessons
show that exaggerated expectations placed on such services can lead to frustration and abandonment.
If they are not well designed, clearly integrated into, and adapted to their prospective users’ life
processes, they will not survive. Furthermore, complementary investments in electricity and literacy
programs can affect the scaling up of initiatives for smallholder farming. For example, the adoption
and use of the e-Wallet service that enables farmers to make more informed farm management decisions
(where and how to buy fertiliser and seeds) in Nigeria was constrained by a poor electricity supply
resulting in many farmers abandoning its use [
70
,
79
]. Applications that failed to consider their target
users’ literacy level were also likely to be abandoned, where the target farmers have a low literacy level
and struggle to interact with the app. A text-based application may be severely limited to succeed
despite the good intentions if the target users find it difficult to read and understand the content [89].
An example is n’kal
ô
in C
ô
te d’Ivoire, which provided market information to cashew producers.
This was forced to close down eventually because the target users found it difficult to engage with the
content [
95
]. Beyond basic literacy, skills such as the Internet skills needed for some of the m-Agri
services are sometimes lacking, which was estimated in 2016 by the World Bank reporting that 7 in 10
people in Africa who do not fully utilise their Internet account affirmed that they do not know how to
use it effectively, while four in five mobile phone owners have simple phones that are not capable of
browsing the Internet [32], bearing in mind that farmers are among these people.
The one size fits all approach can sometimes be a distraction that can cause the implementers
to focus more on the technology and ignore the specific demands and priorities of the proposed
users [
80
,
96
]. For instance, many users of Tigo Kilimo reported that there was limited information on a
wider variety of crops on agronomy information. In addition, they echoed that financial information
should be incorporated into the service [
89
]. The neglect of integrating the deep understanding of the
target users’ culture when designing or adapting m-Agri initiatives is part of the challenges that affect
sustainability as users tend to lose interest in such initiatives [
41
,
53
,
70
]. Scaling-up the initiative can be
challenging when there is a lack of relevance in the content for the target users or the effectiveness of
the communication style [
81
]. For example, the use of foreign languages such as English in non-English
speaking countries may neglect the appropriate cultural context of the host community [
66
,
69
]. M-Agri
services may also be doomed to fail if the implementers do not consider the cost for sustainability
right from the beginning of the project. Services provided free of charge to farmers in the pilot stage
could prove difficult to continue after the donors left without revenue. A typical example is the
M-Kilimo, a Kenyan farmer helpline (no longer functioning), where the service is aimed to address the
weaknesses in the availability of extension services using available networks in Kenya, which charged
a standard network rate. The service was initially successful after the first three years (2009–2011), but
was abandoned due to the high cost of the operation as farmers found it difficult to bear the cost for a
longer time [93,97].
Trust has proven to be a critical factor in determining the success of any given project. The farmers
tend to be skeptical with trusting an external organisation such as the government or those in the
private sector [
82
]. As Baumüller [
36
] and Aker et al. [
80
] point out, getting the farmers to trust the
information provided to them can be difficult. This can affect the progress of such services as well as
the contents and could present a suspicious notion in a way that is either reliable and understandable.
In addition, given that smallholder farmers’ income is often low especially among farmers living
in the rural areas, such farmers can be unwilling to pay for m-Agri services as well as pay for the
costs associated with using the application [
41
,
80
]. A comprehensive business model both for-profit
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 15 of 27
and non-profit m-Agri services, which can guarantee such services to exist independently of external
funding in the future is sometimes ignored. By so doing, it can affect the development [
36
]. In addition,
data security and privacy, i.e., the fear of digital crime and identity theft can be a concern for the
farmers in their continuous use of m-Agri initiatives, especially with the services that are supported
by smartphones, which generally have the tendency of collecting varied sensitive data. Moreover,
poor commitment and collaborative efforts of the governments in implementing adequate policies that
support the varied stakeholders poses a significant challenge to such initiatives [98].
Certainly, some of these challenges to m-Agri services are more difficult to overcome than others.
However, many of these issues can be addressed by taking a more participatory approach, in which
key stakeholders combine forces to identify and adopt strategies that can support the development
and design of m-Agri initiatives. Some of the strategies that were adopted by various m-Agri services
to improve their relevance, longevity, and sustainability are discussed below.
4.3. Strategies Adopted by Some of the Existing M-Agri Initiatives
Although agricultural development activities continue to focus on more technologically advanced
systems, which are knowledge-intensive, there is also demand for more sustainable initiatives.
For smallholder farmers who are the target users of many such interventions, sustainability for them
means placing their needs at the centre of every m-Agri service initiative [
69
,
99
]. Some of these
m-Agri service providers have already begun to implement some strategies that can enhance the
sustainability of their project. In the situations where digital literacy may be low among the target
users, the developers and their funders may have to work directly with the target users to enhance
their skill in using the application. For instance, m-farm, which is a Kenyan m-Agri service, co-opted a
team of content managers who directly work with the farmers who do not fully understand the use of
the application. They act as mentors to the farmers and teach them the step-by-step process of the
application so that they become conversant with it and are able to use it independently in the future.
Where the main issue is an unreliable electricity power supply, the One Acre Fund provided the target
users with solar-powered phone chargers on credit to help address this [117].
Similarly, WeFarm, which operates in Kenya and Uganda, adopted the strategy of using
crowdsourced knowledge through a message service to give remote farmers access to agricultural
information without using Internet facilities [
115
]. This method has enabled the application providers
to connect to more than 1.1 million users across Kenya and Uganda. This service also allows the
farmers to ask questions in any language, and, therefore, directly addresses one of the barriers to
long-term usage by the farmers. This is where the farmers are not conversant with the language used
for the service.
The sustainability of a given project also needs to consider the economic aspects. The question of
whether or not to charge end users fees is the subject of debate and depends on the business model [
80
].
Many m-Agri services take a business-to-customer approach with a business-oriented perspective,
this is where charging the end users a fee for a given service seems reasonable to maintain the initiative.
Services that rely on direct revenue from target users can only attain fiscal sustainability by scale [
83
,
84
].
Some of these m-Agri services adopted this strategy to enhance the sustainability of their service. For
example, the ‘Connected Farmer’ that operates in Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique, which offers
combined services such as agronomic information, a weather forecast, and marketplace services,
adopted the service bundle model through the generation of income from selling products and services
for agribusinesses as well as selling data and market research survey. In this case, the agribusiness
clients pay a monthly charge to access farmer data [
100
]. Similarly, iCow charges its users KES9 ($0.09)
to receive three short message service tips per week. This means that the service’s fiscal sustainability
is ensured with a regular recurring revenue of $150,000 from its regular users [
101
]. In this case,
the higher the number of users, the more the service becomes financially sustainable. However,
the business-to-customer approach can be difficult to achieve in practice as many farmers have low
disposable incomes. Many times, their ability and willingness to pay does not always translate into
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 16 of 27
real payment [
80
]. An example of such a dilemma is the Tigo Kilimo’s experience when new users
and repeat users of the service increased after their short message service fee was removed. Even
though the farmers who used the service expressed their willingness to pay a small amount in a survey,
the majority did not sign up until the fee was removed [89].
Given that m-Agri services can be a complex system of technologies, it is important to clearly
and distinctively define the design and management of the technologies. It is often difficult for
implementers of these m-Agri services to understand the exact needs of the farmers and to assess how
best is best enough for the applications’ everyday use. This may, in the short-term, lead to advances
that fail to tackle the major areas of farmers’ need or deliver over-performing interventions that may
be unnecessarily exorbitant [
80
]. Therefore, a closer relationship and continuous communication with
the end users and other key stakeholders will help to ensure that the value is gained from the initiative.
This can be achieved by drawing insight from the principles for digital development and adapting to
the following strategies and functionalities, as discussed below.
4.4. Strategies and Functionalities that can Enhance the Sustainability of M-Agri Services
4.4.1. Designing with the Users in Mind
The success of m-Agri services should be deep-rooted in a clear understanding of the user
characteristics, their needs, dynamics, and challenges, as well as potential changes in the future.
This could be achieved by getting to know the target users or potential users through dialogue,
observation, and collaboration. During the engagement process, the information gathered is, therefore,
used in building, testing, and redesigning the service until it effectively meets the users’ need.
This approach can address the specific context, culture, behaviours, and expectations of the users
who will directly and interact with the service. This means that the service providers will continue
to partner with the target users throughout the lifecycle of the project, co-creating solutions for
identified problems as well as continuously obtaining and incorporating the feedback from the
users [
80
,
92
,
96
,
100
–
102
]. The m-Agri implementers should focus on engaging the farmers at all stages
of the product development, from identifying the opportunities and generating concepts during the
early stage, to develop stages of product realisation, execution, and scaling-up [
79
]. The m-Agri,
initiatives can be impeded if the perceived problem that the service aims to address, the availability,
affordability, and accessibility of such services are not thoroughly analysed or evaluated before creation
and implementation [
80
,
96
]. This strategy could answer the question of whether the application should
be free, text-based, or Internet connection free [80,98].
4.4.2. Analysing and Understanding the Existing Environment
In maintaining a given m-Agri service, the initiators need to consider the structures and needs
that exist in the target community, country, or region. The time and resources set aside to understand
the culture, political environment, technological infrastructure, gender norms, economy of the target
location, and other factors that can influence target users’ ability to access and use the service, can enable
the implementers to ensure that a relevant m-Agri service that will attract long-term use is chosen.
This recounts that the m-Agri services that do not account for the ecosystem challenges are more likely
to fail to achieve the desired objectives or become sustainable [
92
,
100
,
103
–
105
]. This may imply that the
implementing organisations must identify whether the target community have significant experience
in a certain mobile device to be used for the m-Agri service rather than creating and imposing it on
them. Furthermore, implementers need to understand the socio-cultural circumstances of the female
target users and design m-Agri services that aim to close the digital gender divide [
106
,
107
]. This could
mean that m-Agri services that consider women’s lived realities and working conditions should be
encouraged and supported.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 17 of 27
4.4.3. Designing for Scale and Sustainability
Achieving scale is an objective that always seems ambiguous for many m-Agri service development
practitioners. That is the practitioners’ inability to move such initiatives beyond the pilot stage, such that
requires the adoption of the initiative beyond the pilot’s population. Designing the m-Agri services
for scale means planning beyond the pilot and considering the factors that will enable the extensive
adoption later as well as proposing what will be affordable and useable beyond the pilot group.
The design for the scale of an m-Agri service project from the onset can guarantee that the project will
expand more easily to markets, new users, or locations if the service meets target users’ need and has
an impact. In addition, ensuring that the m-Agri services are embedded in the existing policies, users’
daily activities, and workflow, can help to improve the services’ sustainability [
105
]. Additionally,
institutionalising such a service with a private company, government, or non-governmental organisation
as well as incorporating a business model that has a sustainable revenue generation strategy can
enhance the ultimate achievement of a sustained positive impact [
105
,
107
,
108
,
118
]. Seeking for
scale and sustainability requires that implementers should ensure they understand their target users’
changing behaviour, expectations, and willingness to pay for the m-Agri service.
4.4.4. Addressing Privacy and Security through Collaboration
This approach implies that the m-Agri service providers need to ensure individual users’ sensitive
information is secured while adhering to strict transparency of how data will be collected and used as
well as minimising the amount of personal and sensitive information collected. As such, all related
data policy should be followed stringently. The m-Agri service providers have the duty of care to
ensure that they define data ownership, declare who has access to the data and who decides what to
do with the data, and determine the use and where the data will be stored before embarking on data
collection process. A risk-benefit analysis should be carried out throughout the data collection cycle
to identify the individuals who benefit from the process and who are at risk [
109
]. The initiators or
implementers should consider the impact of data theft or inefficient data management to ensure they
assess the risks of leakage and unauthorised access to any stored data [119].
Furthermore, it is imperative for the implementers to work collaboratively with the target users
to ensure that they [target users] understand the risks associated with sharing their data for their
informed decision about whether to participate or not to participate [
120
]. At the same time, the users
need to be made aware of what their data will be used for, how it will be stored, for how long it will be
stored, and who can access the data. The best practices for security and privacy protection may include
encryption of files, secure cloud storage services, use of two-factor authentication, and validation
of data-sharing agreements with all the potential data-sharing associates [
110
]. The adherence to
these principles is vital to uphold the ethical implementation of m-Agri services and evasion of
negative outcomes that may result from security breaches. Hence, this will help secure the interest of
the users/participants and, at the same time, promote trust between all the stakeholders [end users,
implementers, funders, and others].
4.4.5. Reusing and Improving the Existing Initiatives
Innovation does not only mean building something new, but it can also mean repurposing an
existing initiative/tool in a new way and/or adding more features or functionality. This strategy,
therefore, means that the implementing organisations can explore ways of adapting and improving on
the exiting m-Agri services. The term ‘reuse’ in this perspective means evaluating the resources that are
currently available and using them to meet the aim of any proposed initiative, while ‘improve’ means
modifying the existing resources to improve their quality, applicability, and impacts. This approach
could be achieved by identifying the relevant methods, software platforms, or codes, digital content,
technology tools and standards that have been tried and tested [
111
]. As such, the implementers should
learn about m-Agri initiatives that have been piloted or scaled through blogs, conferences, project
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 18 of 27
evaluations, and digital development community. This can be realised by collaborating with other
digital development practitioners and partaking in technical working groups and other knowledge
sharing events to be informed of the existing services and to establish relationships that could lead to
the future improvement and/or reuse of the proposed one [
53
,
112
]. Although, an existing initiative
may not exactly fit all the requirements for reuse, improving and upgrading it rather than creating an
entirely new one should be considered. It is also important to identify what works and what does
not work before embarking on a given project. Hence, this approach can reduce the amount of time
needed for the development and testing as well as reducing the costs of the m-Agri service.
4.4.6. Open and Data Driven
An open approach to m-Agri services can help increase collaboration among the relevant
stakeholders as well as help to reduce the duplication of the initiative that is already in existence.
Many times, huge resources are spent for investing in new tools, content generation, and developing of
software codes for specific m-Agri solutions that are locked away under licensing fees with restricted
access to data. Moreover, programmes can judiciously use their resources and achieve impact by being
open. However, what being open means for a particular initiative may depend on practical or technical
limitations, privacy, and security concerns, as well as the dynamics of the stakeholders and networks
in the target environment. Being open in this perspective means that the implementers need to adhere
to publicly available standards and policies such as Open Data Commons license, Open Source license,
and Creative Commons license, which allow them to freely share their data, while maintaining users’
privacy protections [
121
]. For instance, the extent to which m-Agri service providers use any open
source software is dependent on the needs identified within the context and assessment of the available
options that fit the needs. Hence, it requires that the implementers/developers need to collaborate
with other counterparts who have done a similar initiative to identify opportunities for making such
initiatives more open. Moreover, no amount of data collected will manifest an accelerated impact if not
used to inform a decision-making process. When an m-Agri service is data driven, quality information
is made available to the right target users when it is relevant and when they can use it to solve their
perceived problems. Hence, the users should drive the process of determining the best data needed for
their decision-making, appropriate time, and in what format.
However, dealing with these approaches and concepts for ensuring m-Agri services’ sustainability
requires good governance and the active involvement of the policymakers to facilitate the process.
The following section, therefore, highlights some of the perceived role appropriate policy and
governance can play in promoting sustained long-term impact of m-Agri services.
4.5. Policy and Governance
This review suggests that policymakers and/or government/non-government organisations can
play a key role in enhancing the sustainability of m-Agri services in Africa by creating an enabling
environment for all the stakeholders through the implementation of favourable policies or programmes.
Thus, this could be achieved by supporting affordable access to mobile handsets, networks, and Internet
facilities, and promoting universal digital literacy as well as grassroot innovation skills [
80
,
85
].
Furthermore, it requires that security policies should be implemented to protect individuals’ data and
uphold their privacy and dignity, as well as instituting an end-of-life post-project data management
policy and ensuring that the implementers abide by strict data protection policies. Given that
agriculture is increasingly becoming knowledge-intensive and high technology-driven, a key task for
the government and policymakers could be to enact policies that support m-Agri services that enable
illiterate farmers to interact with such services using analogue components. More so, the government
can support by hosting m-Agri services at subsidised rates or free for the target users and, by so doing,
ensure an improved long-term impact [80].
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 19 of 27
4.6. Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations for the Future
This review set out to examine the current landscape of the m-Agri app use in Africa, and provide
an overview of the challenges that currently impede the establishment and sustainability of m-Agri
services and identify opportunities for policymakers, designers, and developers to enhance the
development and sustainability of m-Agri apps in Africa. Smallholder farmers in Africa produce the
majority of food consumed. For many of these smallholder farmers, m-Agri services could revolutionise
their access to information and extension services, and, ultimately, improve their livelihoods [
86
].
Currently, these smallholder farmers are not always best served by the m-Agri services available and
this should be improved. This requires input from policy makers and government to improve provision.
The questions posed at the beginning have been addressed in detail in the previous sections, the key
findings are summarised, and recommendations based on these findings are presented in Table 4.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 20 of 27
Table 4. Key challenges for wider m-Agri use, opportunities for improvement, and policy recommendations to improve m-Agri provision for smallholder farmers.
Challenges to Wider Use of M-Agri Services Opportunities/Potential Remedies Policy Recommendation
Uneven and unsteady electricity power supply for charging
mobile phones and Internet access Provision of solar chargers and infrastructure improvements
•Provide support for infrastructure development in rural areas
[e.g., free Wi-Fi]
•Provide solar chargers at low or no cost for target users
Uneven network coverage Improve access in rural and distant regions
•Policy to encourage telecoms companies to widen coverage, financial, or
legislative incentives
Cost of subscription to m-Agri services Free access, low-cost access, sponsorship by NGO, Business, or Government •Government support for service start-up and maintenance of the service
Cost of equipment Low-cost handsets, or free handsets
•Provision of free handsets to disadvantaged users (women farmers,
isolated villages)
•Subsidy for low-cost handsets
Failure to understand farmers use of m-Agri services
results in underutilisation
Understand the needs of users, content, and language, engage in development
needs analysis
•Encourage developers to engage with end users
•Provide access through extension services
•Engaging the extension agents may result in cost savings for
extension services
Accessibility, language, and skills needed for
smartphone access
Provide training, understand user’s language, education, and technological
skill levels
•Provision for the training of users, options for peer-to-peer learning
and mentorship
Bridging the research-farmer disconnect Encourage participatory research involving farmers
•Provide facilities for knowledge exchange
•Provide extension agents with funding and facilities to engage
•Policy to require researchers to engage with end users
•Funding for research to bridge this disconnect
Trust issues on privacy and data security Ensuring standards for data privacy and protection
•
Privacy and data protection policy that can ensure that the data subject has a
right to access and understanding of what his/her data is used for and how
long the data is stored
Unsustainable business models
Diversified income sources to maintain a long-term impact of the service
Revenue models that involve institutions covering the cost of marginalised users’
[e.g., smallholder farmers, women, and young people] access to the m-Agri service
•Provide facilities for maintaining a user feedback loop
•Provide standards for business models to adapt to users’ needs
and expectations
Digital gender divide Identify and engage with the gatekeepers [husbands, parents]
Encourage services that are tailored to the needs of women
•Provide facilities that promote women and girls’ participation in
m-Agri services
•Funding for an e-skill acquisition
Unsustainable practices towards m-Agri service(s) A sustainable approach to the design, development, deployment and use
Participatory approach to understand specific and genuine problems
•Regulatory policies that can ensure sustainable practices
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 21 of 27
5. Conclusions
M-Agri services have proven to bring significant benefits such as access to financial facilities,
agricultural information, and sharing, supply, and marketing services to smallholder farmers with
the enabling penetration of mobile phone and Internet facilities. Despite the documented positive
impacts, such initiatives sometimes face challenges for their sustainability. This review identified
that some of the m-Agri services in Africa encountered challenges such as a lack of trust about the
content by the target users, the one-size-fit-all approach by the service initiators, and reduced attention
for providing the necessary infrastructures before embarking on the development of the initiatives
by the developers/implementers. The infrastructures may include appropriate contents, sustainable
business models, provision of mobile and Internet skills, and investment in grassroot assessment
to understand specific users’ need. However, it was revealed that there were various strategies
adopted by some of the existing m-Agri services in overcoming some of the challenges, which include
reasonable service charges, offline messages that use no Internet for delivery, providing alternatives
for grid electricity-powered mobile phone chargers, as well as co-opting intermediaries between
the providers and users to help improve users’ skills. Following the review of varied literature and
available m-Agri services, this study highlights that, to enhance the sustainability of m-Agri services,
the initiators/implementers should adapt with the various functionalities, which include designing
with the target users in mind, understanding the target environment, and planning and executing
the service beyond the pilot stage. They should ensure the users’ privacy and data security and
explore other innovative strategies such as reusing and improving existing initiatives, operating within
open data and open source policies/standards, and utilising a user-led initiative approach. It is also
important that m-Agri service(s) providers ensure truly sustainable initiatives by adopting a holistic
approach for sustainability in the design, development, deployment, and evaluation of any m-Agri
service(s). They should consider the long-term social and economic impact as well as efficiency for
the users and encourage sustainable behaviour through the design. This can be achieved through
a participatory approach to identify the needs of the target users and requirements for sustainable
m-Agri service(s). Also, a peer-to-peer model among implementers and users should be encouraged to
enhance the sharing of ideas and initiatives. As such, these recommended strategies for improved
long-term impact of future m-Agri projects are derived from the key findings of this review. Hence,
each country’s government and policy makers can enhance the actualisation of these recommendations.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, E.M.E., L.T. and K.D.-S.; methodology, E.M.E., L.T. and K.D.-S.;
investigation, E.M.E.; formal analysis, E.M.E.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.E.; writing—review and
editing, E.M.E., L.T. and K.D.-S.; supervision, L.T. and K.D.-S.; project administration, E.M.E. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study received no external funding.
Acknowledgments:
Emeana sincerely acknowledges Coventry University, UK and, particularly, the Centre
for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR) for the funding received towards her PhD. We also thank the
anonymous reviewers for their incisive comments and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
International Telecommunication Unit [ITU] ICT Facts & Figures. 2015. Available online: https://www.itu.
int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2018).
2.
Mansell, R.; When, U. (Eds.) Knowledge Societies: Information Technologies for Sustainable Development, Report
Prepared for the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development; Oxford University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 1998.
3.
Walsham, G. Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on a future agenda for the IS field. J. Inf.
Technol. 2012,27, 87–93. [CrossRef]
4.
Donner, J.; Escobari, M.X. A review of evidence on mobile use by micro and small enterprises in developing
countries. J. Int. Dev. 2010,22, 641–658. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 22 of 27
5.
Annan, K. Secretary General stresses international community’s objective of harnessing informatics revolution
for benefit of mankind. In United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development ‘Inter-Agency
Project on Universal Access to Basic Communication and Information Services’, 3rd ed.; E/CN.16/1997/Misc.3;
Geneva, Switzerland, 1997; p. 1. Available online: https://www.un.org/press/en/1997/19970623.sgsm6268.html
(accessed on 28 June 2019).
6.
West, D.M. How Mobile Technology is Driving Global Entrepreneurship; Brookings Policy Report: 2012.
Available online: http://www.insidepolitics.org/brookingsreports/m_entrepreneurship.pdf (accessed on
26 May 2018).
7. Harris, R.W. How ICT4D research fails the poor. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2016,22, 177–192.
8.
Qureshi, S. Are we making a better world with information and communication technology for development
(ICT4D) research? Findings from the field and theory building. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2015,21, 511–522.
9.
Easterly, W.; Easterly, W.R. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much
Ill and So Little Good; Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
10.
Heeks, R. Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. Inf. Soc.
2002,18, 101–112. [CrossRef]
11.
Kleine, D.; Unwin, T. Technological revolution, evolution and new dependencies: What’s new about ICT4D?
Third World Q. 2009,30, 1045–1067.
12.
Kaware, S.S.; Sain, S. ICT application in education: An overview Sudhir. Int. J. Multidiscip. Approach Stud.
2015,2, 25–32.
13.
Asenso-Okyere, K.; Mekonnen, D. The Importance of ICTs in the Provision of Information for Improving
Agricultural Productivity and Rural Incomes in Africa. 2012. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/p/rac/
wpaper/2012-015.html (accessed on 24 April 2018).
14. Avgerou, C. Discourses on ICT and development. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 2010,6, 1–18.
15.
Heeks, R. Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute to development? J. Int. Dev.
2010,22, 625–640. [CrossRef]
16.
Heeks, R. Future priorities for development informatics research from the post-2015 development agenda.
Manch. Cent. Dev. Inform. Work. Pap. 2014, 57. [CrossRef]
17.
Walsham, G. ICT4D research: Reflections on history and future agenda. Inf. Technol. Dev.
2017
,23, 18–41.
[CrossRef]
18.
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations [FAO]. Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) in Agriculture: A Report to the G20 Agricultural Deputies. 2017. Available online:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7961e.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2019).
19.
Zyl, O.V.; Alexander, T.; Graaf, L.D.; Mukherjee, K. ICTs for Agriculture in Africa; World Bank: Washington,
DC, USA, 2014.
20. Chavula, H.K. The role of ICTs in agricultural production in Africa. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 2014,6, 279–289.
21.
Ajani, E.N. Promoting the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for agricultural
transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for policy. J. Agric. Food Inf.
2014
,15, 42–53. [CrossRef]
22.
Ajani, E.N.; Agwu, A.E. Information communication technology needs of small-scale farmers in Anambra
State, Nigeria. J. Agric. food Inf. 2012,13, 144–156. [CrossRef]
23.
May, J.; Karugia, J.; Ndokweni, M. Information and Communication Technologies and Agricultural
Development in Sub Saharan Africa: Transformation and Employment Generation. 2007.
Available online: https://www.africaportal.org/publications/information-and-communication-technologies-
and-agricultural-development-in- sub-saharan-africa- transformation-and-employment-generation/
(accessed on 20 December 2019).
24.
Thapa, D.; Sæbø, Ø. Exploring the link between ICT and development in the context of developing countries:
A literature review. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2014,64, 1–15. [CrossRef]
25.
Zewge, A.; Dittrich, Y.; Bekele, R. Systematic mapping study of information communication technology
research for agriculture: The case of developing countries. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2017,82, 1–25.
26.
Beale, R.; Dearden, A.; Dray, S.; Jackson, A.; Jones, M.; Kam, M.; Nocera, J.A.; Winters, N. Human-Computer
Interaction for Development (HCI4D): Who, What, Where, When and How. 2009. Available online: https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6b1d/6211739d325fca4069d4738c9fa539a633ea.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2019).
27.
Anokwa, Y.; Smyth, T.N.; Ramachandran, D.; Sherwani, J.; Schwartzman, Y.; Luk, R.; Ho, M.; Moraveji, N.;
DeRenzi, B. Stories from the field: Reflections on HCI4D experiences. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 2009,5, 101.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 23 of 27
28.
Annan, K.; Dryden, S.; Conway, G. Digital Thinking to Transform Africa’s Food System: Overcoming
Isolation, Speeding Up Change, and Taking Success to Scale. 2016. Available online: https://www.digitalgreen.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/african_farmers_in_the_digital_age.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).
29.
Baumüller, H. Towards smart farming? Mobile technology trends and their potential for developing country
agriculture. In Handbook on ICT in Developing Countries: 5 G Perspective; Skouby, K.E., Williams, I., Eds.;
River Publishers: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017.
30.
Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It Means and How to Respond; World Economic Forum:
Colony, Switzerland, 2016.
31.
Aker, J.C.; Mbiti, I.S. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. J. Econ. Perspect.
2010
,24, 207–232.
[CrossRef]
32.
World Bank. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends; Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0
IGO; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/896971468194972881/pdf/102725-PUB-Replacement-PUBLIC.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2018).
33.
Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Foster, G.L.; Owen, L.; Persello, S. Exploring the role of smartphone technology for
citizen science in agriculture. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016,36, 1–8. [CrossRef]
34.
Yonazi, E.; Kelly, T.; Halewood, N.; Blackman, C. (Eds.) eTransform Africa: The Transformational Use of
Information and Communication Technologies in Africa; World Bank and African Development Bank, with the
African Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. Available online: https://gsdrc.org/document-library/etransform-
africa-the-transformational-use- of-information-and- communication-technologies-in-africa/(accessed on
30 May 2018).
35.
GSMA. Digitising Payments in Agriculture to Unlock Mobile Money Growth in Rural Areas. 2017.
Available online: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/programme/magri/digitising-payments-
agriculture-unlock-mobile-money-growth-rural-areas/(accessed on 29 November 2018).
36.
Baumüller, H. Enhancing smallholder market participation through mobile phone-enabled services: The case
of m-farm in Kenya. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2015,68, 1–16.
37.
Heeks, R. Researching ICT-Based Enterprise in Developing Countries: Analytical Tools and Models.
Dev. Inform. Work. Pap. 2008. [CrossRef]
38.
World Bank. ICT in Agriculture: Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, and Institutions;
World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/455701468340165132/ICT-in-agriculture-connecting-smallholders-to-knowledge-networks-and-
institutions (accessed on 29 November 2018).
39.
Danes, M.; Jellema, A.; Janssen, S. Mobiles for Agricultural Development: Exploring Trends, Challenges and
Policy Options for the Dutch Government; Alterra Report 2501; Alterra, Wageningen-UR: Wageningen,
The Netherlands, 2014. Available online: http://edepot.wur.nl/297683 (accessed on 26 May 2018).
40.
Baumüller, H. The Little We Know: An Exploratory Literature Review on the Utility of Mobile Phone-Enabled
Services for Smallholder Farmers. J. Int. Dev. 2018,30, 134–154. [CrossRef]
41.
Qiang, C.Z.; Kuek, S.C.; Dymond, A.; Esselaar, S.; Unit, I.S. Mobile Applications for Agriculture and Rural
Development; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/handle/10986/21892 (accessed on 26 May 2018).
42.
Misaki, E.; Apiola, M.; Gaiani, S.; Tedre, M. Challenges facing sub-Saharan small-scale farmers in accessing
farming information through mobile phones: A systematic literature review. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries.
2018, 12034. [CrossRef]
43.
Balraj, P.L.; Pavalam, S.M. Integrating ICT in agriculture for knowledge-based economy. Rwandan J. Math.
Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012,27, 44–56. [CrossRef]
44.
McCole, D.; Culberttson, M.J.; Suvedi, M.; McNamara, P.E. Addressing the challenges of extension and
advisory services in Uganda: The Grameen Foundation’s community knowledge worker program. J. Int.
Agric. Ext. Educ. 2014,21, 6–18. [CrossRef]
45.
Nwaobiala, C.U.; Ubor, V.U. Effectiveness of electronic wallet system of growth enhancement support scheme
distribution among arable crop farmers in Imo State, South East Nigeria. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng.
Agric. Rural Dev. 2016,16, 355–360.
46.
Fadairo, O.S.; Olutegbe, N.S.; Tijani, A.M. Attitude of crop farmers towards an e-Wallet platform of the
growth enhancement support scheme for input delivery in Oke-Ogun area of Oyo State. J. Agric. Inform.
2015,6, 62–71. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 24 of 27
47.
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations [FAO]. E-Agriculture 10 Year Review Report:
Implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Action Line C7. ICT Applications:
E-Agriculture; Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations [FAO]: Rome, Italy, 2015.
Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4605e.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2019).
48.
Blevis, E. Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse. Available online:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1240624.1240705 (accessed on 20 October 2019).
49.
Winters, N.; Toyama, K. Human-Computer Interaction for Development: Mapping the Terrain.
Available online: https://itidjournal.org/index.php/itid/article/view/419/187 (accessed on 20 October 2019).
50.
Steyn, J.; Van Greunen, D. ICTs for inclusive communities in developing societies. In Proceedings of
the 8th International Development Informatics Association Conference, Port Elizabeth, South Africa,
3–4 November 2014; pp. 189–205, ISBN 978-0-620-63498-4.
51.
Brynjarsdottir, H.; Håkansson, M.; Pierce, J.; Baumer, E.P.S.; DiSalvo, C.; Sengers, P. Sustainably unpersuaded:
How persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. In Proceedings of the Session: Critical Perspectives on
DesignCHI 2012, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012.
52.
Lundström, A.; Daniel Pargman, D. Developing a Framework for Evaluating the Sustainability of Computing
Projects. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317704557_Developing_a_Framework_
for_Evaluating_the_Sustainability_of_Computing_Projects (accessed on 11 October 2019).
53.
Roedl, D.; Odom, W.; Blevis, E. Three principles of sustainable interaction design, revisited. In Digital
Technology and Sustainability: Engaging the Paradox, 1st ed.; Hazas, M., Nathan, L., Eds.; Routledge: London,
UK, 2017.
54.
Thomson, C.S.; El-Haram, M.A.; Emmanuel, R. Mapping sustainability assessment with the project life cycle.
2011. Available online: https://www.sue-mot.org/conference-files/2009/restricted/papers/papers/Thomson1.
pdf (accessed on 11 October 2019).
55.
International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD] Annual Report 2009: Enabling Poor Rural People to
Overcome Poverty; IFAD: Rome, Italy, 2009. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/
39309762/print.pdf/41ccca4d-8dbd-4308-bc5d- 88b306fee339 (accessed on 26 July 2018).
56.
Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M.; Agnelli, S.; Al-Athel, S.; Chidzero, B. Our Common Future; Oxford University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
57.
Hazas, M.; Nathan, L. Introduction: Digital technology and sustainability: Engaging the paradox. In Digital
Technology and Sustainability: Engaging the Paradox, 1st ed.; Hazas, M., Nathan, L., Eds.; Routledge: London,
UK, 2017.
58.
Ho, M.R.; Smyth, T.N.; Kam, M.; Dearden, A. Human-Computer Interaction for Development: The Past,
Present, and Future. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 2009,5, 1–18.
59.
Remy, C.; Bates, O.E.G.; Dix, A.; Thomas, V.; Hazas, M.D.; Friday, A.J.; Huang, E. Evaluation beyond Usability:
Validating Sustainable HCI Research. In Proceedings of the CHI ‘18, 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018. [CrossRef]
60.
Bengtsson, F.; Agerfalk, P.J. Information technology as a change actant in sustainability innovation: Insights
from Uppsala. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2011,20, 96–112. [CrossRef]
61.
Toyama, K. Preliminary thoughts on a taxonomy of value for sustainable computing. First Monday
2015
,
20, 8.
62.
Thomas, V.; Remy, C.; Bates, O. The Limits of HCD:Reimagining the Anthropocentricity of ISO 9241-210.
In Proceedings of the LIMITS’17, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 22–24 June 2017.
63.
Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.
2005,8, 19–32. [CrossRef]
64.
Baumüller, H. Enhancing Smallholder Market Participation Through Mobile Phone-Enabled Services: The Case of
M-Farm in Kenya; University of Bonn: Bonn, Germany, 2013. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/5c92/deef78e069a06357d998b278c0c84ffe22b2.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2018).
65.
David-West, O. Esoko Networks: Facilitating Agriculture Through Technology Growing Inclusive Markets; UNDP:
New York, NY, USA, 2010. Available online: http://growinginclusivemarkets.com/media/cases/Ghana_
Esoko_2010.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2018).
66.
Ifeoma, O.D.; Mthitwa, H.T. An analysis of the impact of the use of mobile communication technologies by
farmers in Zimbabwe. A case study of Esoko and Eco Farmers platforms. In Proceedings of the SIG Glob
Dev Pre-ECIS Workshop, Munster, Germany, 26 May 2015.
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 25 of 27
67.
Lamptey, R.B.; Shambo, I.A.; Hassan, A.A. Disseminating and promoting agriculture information through
library and information services in Ghana. Qual. Quant. Meth. Lib. 2016,5, 901–907.
68.
Brugger, F. Mobile Application in Agriculture. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/
mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Syngenta_Report_on_mAgriculture_abridged_
web_version.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).
69.
Henze, J.; Ulrichs, C. The Potential and Limitations of Mobile-learning and other services in the Agriculture
Sector of Kenya Using Phone Applications. In Proceedings of the 12th European International Farming
Systems Association (IFSA) Symposium, Social and Technological Transformation of Farming Systems:
Diverging and Converging Pathways, Shropshire, UK, 12–15 July 2016; International Farming Systems
Association (IFSA) Europe: Vienna, Austria, 2016; pp. 1–11. Available online: https://www.harper-adams.ac.
uk/events/ifsa/papers/2/2.5%20Henze.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2019).
70.
Demenongu, T.S.; Yahaya, M.; Jiriko, R. Assessment of Farm Inputs Distribution under the E-wallet Scheme
in Benue State, Nigeria. Int. J. Agric. Food Res. 2018,6, 2.
71.
Bedi, A.S. The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Economic Development—A Partial Survey;
Center for Development Research: Bonn, Germany, 1999.
72.
Milovanovi´c, S. The Role and Potential of Information Technology in Agricultural Improvement. Econ. Agric.
2014,2, 471–485. [CrossRef]
73.
Nneji, I.U.; Okoruwa, V.O.; Adeyemo, T.A. Impact of electronic-wallet system on farmer’s welfare in Oyo
State, Nigeria. Int. J. Soc. Econ. Bradf. 2015,44, 474–490.
74.
Emeana, E.M.; Trenchard, L.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Shaikh, S. Evaluating the role of public agricultural
extension and advisory services in promoting agro-ecology transition in Southeast Nigeria. Agroecol. Sustain.
Food Syst. 2019,43, 123–144. [CrossRef]
75.
Davis, K.; Sulaiman, R. The New Extensionist: Roles and Capacities to Strengthen Extension and Advisory
Services. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Edu. 2014,21, 341–355. [CrossRef]
76.
Courtois, P.; Subervie, J. Farmer bargaining power and market information services. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
2014
,
97, 953–977. [CrossRef]
77.
Kikulwe, E.M.; Fischer, E.; Qaim, M. Mobile money, smallholder farmers, and household welfare in Kenya.
J. PLoS ONE 2014,9, e109804. [CrossRef]
78.
Sekabira, H.; Qaim, M. Can mobile phones improve gender equality and nutrition? Panel data evidence
from farm households in Uganda. Food Policy 2017,73, 95–103. [CrossRef]
79.
Godson-Ibeji, C.C.; Chikaire, J.U.; Anyaoha, N.O. Assessing the effects of e-wallet scheme in farm inputs
distribution to rural farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. E3 J. Agric. Res. Dev. 2016,6, 34–41. [CrossRef]
80.
Aker, J.C.; Ghosh, I.; Burrell, J. The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture initiatives. Agric. Econ.
2016
,
47, 35–48. [CrossRef]
81.
Rashid, A.T.; Elder, L. Mobile phones and development: An analysis of IDRC-supported projects. Electron. J.
Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2009,36, 1–16. [CrossRef]
82.
Ezezika, O.C.; Lennox, R.; Daar, A.S. Strategies for building trust with farmers: The case of Bt maize in South
Africa. Agric. Food Secur. 2012,1, S3. [CrossRef]
83.
Joshi, A.W. Continuous Supplier Performance Improvement: Effects of Collaborative Communication and
Control. J. Mark. 2009,73, 133–150. [CrossRef]
84.
Morris, M.; Schindehutte, M.; Allen, J. The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a unified perspective.
J. Bus. Res. 2005,58, 726–735. [CrossRef]
85.
Aker, J.C. Dial “A” for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural
extension in developing countries. Agric. Econ. 2011,42, 631–647. [CrossRef]
86.
Lawal-Adebowale, O.A.; Akeredolu-Ale, B.I. Agricultural workers’ perception of information and
communication technology usage for agricultural development in Southwest Nigeria. J. Soc. Dev. Afr.
2010
,
25, 147–176. [CrossRef]
87.
Omolayo, O. These 10 Apps Will Boost Agriculture in Africa. 2015. Available online: http://venturesafrica.
com/these-10-apps-will- boost-agriculturein-africa/(accessed on 19 April 2018).
88.
Mercy Corps. The Potential of Mobile Phones in Transforming Agriculture for Smallholder Farmers:
Results from the Agri-Fin Mobile Baseline Surveys in Indonesia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. 2013.
Available online: https://www.mercycorps.org.uk/research-resources/potential-mobile-phones-transforming-
agriculture-smallholder-farmers- results-agri (accessed on 30 March 2018).
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 26 of 27
89.
GSMA. Tigo Kilimo, Impact Evaluation. 2015. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/
mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GSMA_Tigo_Kilimo_IE.pdf (accessed on
30 March 2018).
90.
Tricarico, D.; Loukos, P. Opportunities in Agricultural Value Chain Digitisation: Learnings from
Uganda. 2017. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/
2018/01/Opportunities-in-agricultural-value- chain-digitisation-Learnings- from-Uganda.pdf (accessed on
30 April 2018).
91.
Waldron, D.; Amusin, E. How Digitizing Agricultural Input Payments in Rural Kenya Is Tackling
Poverty: The Case of Once Acre Fund; Better Than Cash Alliance: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
Available online: https://www.betterthancash.org/tools-research/case-studies/digitizing-agricultural-input-
payments-in-rural-kenya (accessed on 30 March 2018).
92.
Laureys, F. Sector Network Rural Development, Africa (SNRD Africa), Germany. 2016. Available online: http:
//www2.giz.de/wbf/4tDx9kw63gma/GIZ-ICT-study-final-interactive-version.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2018).
93.
Rioba, B. Digitising Agricultural Extension Services; The Technical Centre for Agricultura and Rural Cooperation:
Wageningen, The Netherland, 2018. Available online: http://spore.cta.int/images/190/Spore-190- EN-web.pdf
(accessed on 20 January 2019).
94.
Ch
â
te, B. Next-Generation Farmers: Digitally Connected and Business-Minded; The Technical Centre for
Agricultural and Rural Cooperation: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. Available online: http://spore.cta.
int/images/187/Spore-187-EN-WEB.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2019).
95.
Kedja, S. Information on agricultural markets via N’KAL
Ô
interactive voice server and radios of proximity-the
limits of an innovative approach (Ivory Coast). In CTA Report: Lessons for Sustainability: Failing to Scale
ICT4Ag-Enabled Services; Andrew, S., Ed.; Pure Impression: Mauguio, France, 2016.
96.
GSMA. mAgri Design Toolkit User-Centered Design for Mobile Agriculture. 2016. Available online:
https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/themes/theme_mobilefordevelopment/magri-
report/pdfs/03_mAgri_Design_toolkit_Plan.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2018).
97.
Odhiambo, M.D.; Tabitha, A.O. Failing to scale up in ICT for agriculture projects: Learning the lessons from
the field—A case of M-Kilimo a farmer help line set in Kenya. In CTA Report: Lessons for Sustainability: Failing
to Scale ICT4Ag-Enabled Services; Andrew, S., Ed.; Pure Impression: Mauguio, France, 2016.
98.
Van Schalkwyk, F.; Young, A.; Verhulst, S. Esoko–Leveling the Information Playing Field for Smallholder
Farmers in Ghana. 2017. Available online: http://odimpact.org/files/case-esoko.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2018).
99.
Chetty, M.; Grinter, R.E. HCI4D: HCI Challenges in the Global South. In Proceedings of the CHI 2007
Extended Abstracts, San Jose, CA, USA, 28 April–3 May 2007.
100.
GSMA. Agricultural Value-Added Services (Agri VAS) Toolkit 2.0. How to Design, Develop and Market Next
Generation VAS for the Rural Market. 2016. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/
wp-content/uploads/2016/05/mAgri-VAS-Toolkit-2016.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2018).
101.
GSMA. mAgri Design Toolkit: User-Centred Design for Mobile Agriculture. 2018.
Available online: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/plugins/plugin_m4d_
shortcodes//magri-report/pdfs/01_mAgri_Design_toolkit.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2018).
102.
International Institute for Communication and Development [iicd]. ICT for Economic Development:
Five Years of Learning. 2012. Available online: https://iicd.org/documents/ict-for-rural-economic-
development-five-years-of- learning/(accessed on 30 April 2018).
103.
U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID]. Local Systems: A Framework for Supporting
Sustained Development; U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID]: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
Available online: https://www.usaid.gov/policy/local-systems-framework (accessed on 10 May 2018).
104.
Wacksman, J.; Sultan, M.B. CommCare Project Needs Assessment (Spa). 2016. Available online: https:
//wiki.commcarehq.org/display/commcarepublic/Project+Needs+Assessment (accessed on 10 May 2018).
105.
Woodard, J.; Weinstock, J.; Lesher, N. Integrating Mobiles into Development Projects. 2014. FHI 360.
Available online: https://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2M4DHandbook_August2014-
New.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2018).
106.
Betterplace Lab. Bridging the Digital Gender Gap. 2017. Available online: https://www.betterplace-lab.org/
wp-content/uploads/BDGG-Brochure-Web-ENGLISH.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2019).
Sustainability 2020,12, 485 27 of 27
107.
GIZ. Harnessing the Chances of Digitalisation for Rural Development. 2018. Available online:
https://snrd-asia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/GIZ_Harnessing- the-chances-of- digitalisation-for-
rural-development_2018.compressed.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2019).
108.
GSMA. Scaling Mobile for Development: Harness the Opportunity in the Developing World. London.
2013. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/
Scaling-Mobile-for-Development_Harness-the-Opportunity-in-the-Developing- World.pdf (accessed on
29 April 2018).
109.
United Nations Global Pulse. Improving Data Privacy & Data Security in Ict4d: Meeting Report. 2015.
Available online: http://www.unglobalpulse.org/sites/default/files/Data%20Privacy%20and%20Security%
20in%20ICT4D%20-%20conference%20report%20layout%20-%20FINAL.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2018).
110.
African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection. The Legal Framework for
Cyber-Security and Personal Data Protection. 2014. Available online: https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/
29560-treaty-0048_-african_union_convention_on_cyber_security_and_personal_data_protection_e.pdf
(accessed on 29 June 2018).
111.
Bothwell, C.; Barthel, N.; Plavevski, O.; Keisling, K.; Kulick, D.; Keith, K.; Neu, C.; Perry, K.;
Perera, Y. Organisational Guide to ICT4D: Leveraging Technology for International Development. 2014.
Available online: https://www.crs.org/sites/default/files/tools-research/organizational_guide_to_ict4d.pdf
(accessed on 29 June 2018).
112.
Grevendonk, J.; Taliesin, B.; Brigden, D. Planning an Information Systems Project: A Toolkit for Public Health
Managers. 2013. Available online: https://path.azureedge.net/media/documents/TS_opt_ict_toolkit.pdf
(accessed on 29 April 2018).
113.
AgroHub. 2018. Available online: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ConsuTI.
AgroHUBapp&hl=pt (accessed on 30 May 2018).
114.
HelloTractor. Connecting You to Your Tractor and Your Tractor to the World. 2018. Available online:
https://www.hellotractor.com/#(accessed on 30 May 2018).
115.
WeFarm. World’s Largest Farmer-to-Farmer Network, Wefarm, Reaches over One Million Users. 2018.
Available online: https://wefarm.co/announcements/2019/3/4/worlds-largest-farmer-to-farmer-network-
wefarm-reaches-over-one-million-users (accessed on 1 June 2018).
116.
SENEKELA—Market Intelligence Service for Farmers. 2018. Available online: https://www.nitidae.
org/en/actions/senekela-service-de-collecte-des-prix-du-marche-destine-aux-agriculteurs (accessed on
30 May 2018).
117.
Gro Intelligence. Mobile Apps and the African Farmer: Potential, Challenges, and Limitations. 2015.
Available online: https://gro-intelligence.com/insights/mobile-apps-and-the-african-farmer (accessed on
30 April 2018).
118.
Dimagi, THE MATURITY MODEL: Use the Maturity Model to Establish a Long-Term Vision for Building
and Scaling Your Mobile System. 2019. Available online: https://www.dimagi.com/toolkits/maturity-model/
(accessed on 29 April 2019).
119.
European Union General Data Protection Regulation. 2018 Reform of EU Data Protection Rules. 2018.
Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/justice-and-fundamental-rights/data- protection/
2018-reform-eu-data-protection-rules_en (accessed on 29 June 2018).
120.
MERL Tech. Rethinking Informed Consent in Digital Development. 2017. Available online: http://merltech.
org/rethinking-informed-consent- in-digital-development/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-3
(accessed on 29 April 2018).
121.
Code Innovation. Creative Commons: A Primer for Humanitarian Aid and International Development.
2015. Available online: https://www.codeinnovation.com/blog/2015/09/our-primer-on-how-to- use-open-
source-and-the-creative-commons-in- aid-and-development (accessed on 29 April 2018).
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
