1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1069, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1140, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The ICT2Scale project contributes to better land management by supplying smallholder farmers with targeted SMS messages on diverse agricultural practices. This enables them to optimize resources and adopt more sustainable methods, consequently improving livelihoods in remote areas.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In Tunisia, smallholder farmers rely heavily on extension services for information regarding new and sustainable agricultural practices, improved varieties, and market prices. Unfortunately, these services often fall short, particularly in remote areas, due to inadequate financial, human, and logistical resources. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can play a crucial role in filling this void. This can strongly contribute to developing the agricultural sector and reducing or preventing land degradation.
The ICT2Scale project aims to address these issues and reach these substantial group of farmers. The project was led by the International Center of Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA). It was initiated in 2019 with a survey to identify the information needs of smallholder farmers. Tunisian farming experts crafted 101 technical SMS messages, disseminating them to approximately 1,000 smallholder farmers in Kairouan, Zaghouan, and Jendouba. These messages covered diverse commodities such as cereals, olives, citrus, honey, and livestock, simultaneously aiding farmers in sustainable land management and resource optimization.
A one-day workshop was organized to compile the advisory messages. Thirty specialists from various disciplines gathered, including different National Agricultural Research and Extension Services (NARES) centres. The workshop's estimated cost (including food and per diem) was around $1000 USD. Each SMS “unit” - of one message to one farmer - costs approximately $0.01 USD, totalling $1010 USD to make the 101 SMS available to 1000 farmers. Although the data services were provided free-of-charge by network companies, the overall project cost is still estimated at $3000 USD per year. Similar infrastructure with similar cost was implemented in the projects “Mind the Gap” and "Crop-Livestock and Conservation Agriculture (CLCA)".
A follow-up survey conducted by phone in May and June 2021 involved 421 SMS recipients, revealed that 60% found the messages useful, with 54% claiming to have learned something new. However, only 15% agreed that the messages arrived at the right time. Notably, 41% of farmers expressed a willingness to pay $0.01 USD per message after the project, indicating a potential avenue for the sustainability of this SMS technology. Farmers recommended using SMS for weather alerts and disease outbreaks; employing phone calls or Interactive Voice Responses (IVR); sending messages at the right time; and incorporating information on marketing, training, and livestock vaccination programmes.
Key advantages of an SMS service are:
-More cost-effective than in-person advice via public extension agents
-Particularly effective during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the lack of personal contact
-Immediate reach to thousands of farmers in case of emergencies or opportunities
-Flexible and adaptable for quick information updates
-Useful when extension resources, such as vehicles and funds, are limited or unavailable
-Effective in disseminating information about events like training and seed distribution

However, some weaknesses persist, including a lack of interaction (i.e. a top-down approach), less convincing than personal exchange, and ongoing funding challenges, with the Tunisian government hesitant to invest in the project without more dialogue and convincing arguments.
In summary, the ICT2Scale project has proved the viability and cost-effectiveness of employing SMS technology to reach smallholder farmers in remote areas. Consequently, this has the potential to enhance more sustainable and efficient use of land and natural resources, leading to an improvement in rural livelihoods. However, securing sustainable funding remains challenging in order to scale up and maximize impact.
Acknowledgement:
ICARDA’s work on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for agricultural development is supported by the German Agency for International Development (GIZ) in Collaboration with National Public Partners (AVFA, OEP, INRAT,ONAGRI, and CRDA) and Private Partners (NG Trend, Tunisie SMS) in Tunisia.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

The SMS messages were directed to different land use and land management such as barley cultivation, livestock herding, and olive production.

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• pastoralism and grazing land management
• integrated crop-livestock management

• Digital agriculture

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Most SMS messages were about agronomic and management measures.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

By informing farmers with technical advice, farmers can manage their land more sustainably.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Workshop to compile technical advice
2.	Setting up network

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Workshop to compile 101 SMS advice messages	workshop	1.0	1000.0	1000.0
Equipment	SMS unit (101 SMSs to 1000 farmers)	unit	101000.0	0.01	1010.0
Other	Remaining		1.0	1000.0	1000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					3010.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					3010.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

...

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	very well

Comments:

Farmers can receive various advice that allows them to cope with a wide range of climate-change induced issues and disasters.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

Around 1000 smallholder farmers

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 11-50%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The system in SMS-based which does require a smartphone, making it more accessible.
The technical advises allow to improve production practices.
The technical advice gives good reference for current practices

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
More cost-effective than in-person advice via public extension agents
Particularly effective during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the lack of personal contact
Immediate reach to thousands of farmers in case of emergencies or opportunities
Flexible and adaptable for quick information updates
Useful when extension resources, such as vehicles and funds, are limited or unavailable
Effective in disseminating information about upcoming events like training and seed distribution

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
SMS is often received at wrong timing.
SMS messages did not include advice on animal vaccination programs.	Include this in the technical advice
SMS messages did not include early warnings for (weather) hazards.	Include this as well in the infrastructure and adding underpinning (weather) forecast models for this.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
SMS is not useful for illiterate farmers	Education in the rural areas should be improved in general.
Lack of dialogue (a top-down approach)	Include farmers when writing the advice and consider their needs beforehand, which was also done during the project.
Less convincing than personal exchanges
Challenging to have ongoing investment	By showing to donors and national government that using SMS services is a viable and cost-effective way to improve rural livelihoods and make better use of the land and natural resources.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Mohamed Zied Dhraief, Udo Rudiger. (20/9/2021). Lesson learned from the study on "Impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) on Agricultural Development in Tunisia". Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/66236

Title/ description:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Mohamed Zied Dhraief, Aymen Frija, Hassen Ouerghemmi, Barbara Rischkowsky, Udo Rudiger. (26/10/2023). A contextual ICT model to explain adoption of mobile applications in developing countries: A case study of Tunisia. PLoS ONE, 18 (10).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/68779

Title/ description:

List of SMS messages to be send to farmers.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10637

Title/ description:

Udo Rudiger, Boubaker Dhehibi. (5/11/2021). General project "ICT2Scale" presentation.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/66426