Improving Agricultural Market Performance:
Developing Agricultural Market Information Systems
22
contrast, a push system provides generic information automatically to the mobile phone (CTA,
2012). An example of an established push service is RML in India, which is operated by Thomson
Reuters and provides price information on 800 agricultural products (FAO, 2017). Bulk
standardised SMS messages i.e. push methods are much cheaper than pulled methods per
message though overall push methods might be more expensive due to the volume (ibid).The main drawback is that information provided through these channels (i.e. push and pull) is
limited compared to radio, for instance, which is cheaper and potentially also enables the very
poor inmarginalised communities to access information (David-Benz et al., 2016). Furthermore,
valuable information related to the types of queries users’ have which could help improve the
MIS service is held by the mobile phone provider and therefore restricts vital feedback (ibid).
However, useful information could still be garnered using othermetrics e.g. number of requests/
downloads (ibid). More recently, Interactive Voice Response (IVR) is being used as a method to
pull information which could reduce the potential inequalities in access i.e. those that illiterate
unable to read SMS messages, however, farmers would have to rely on the memory of the
interaction and would not be able to record the information provided (Galtier et al., 2014). The
Indians have had some success with forming mobile farmer groups who share information
among themselves. This may be a way forward. Radio in contrast though requires users to
phone-in (which could exclude some) may be able to provide more useful feedback. In addition,
the numbers of people likely to receive information by mobile phone are far fewer than by radio
(e.g. 10 times fewer people in Kenya and in Zambia 100 times fewer people receive information
by mobile phone). There are drawbacks to the radio too (especially in developing countries)
which should be mentioned including information being broadcasted may not be considered
impartial and the one-way nature may limit interaction/useful information being shared (CTA,
2006). This being said it should not be discounted as a complementary tool in many countries
where there is limited access for the very poor to access/use mobile phones/smartphones
(David-Benz et al., 2012).
2.5.4 MANAGING FEEDBACK AND OTHER ISSUES The developments in ICT have now enabled MIS to integrate other information alongside prices
such as agricultural extension advice, weather and linking buyers and sellers (FAO, 2017).
Moreover, some systems also allow for users to select what information is of most interest which
allows the MIS to understand the needs of the user (CTA, 2012). A recent review by FAO found
that many difficulties found in previous models (i.e. first generation) still remain under the
2GMIS, especially with regards to data accuracy and sustainability of systems (FAO, 2017).However, in reality, this feature is still limited as the majority MIS either do not have it or are
unable to analyse the information/feedback from users and thereby provide a better, more
tailored service (Galtier et al., 2014). In addition, though many MIS platforms provide a wide
array of information, it is often difficult for decision-makers to obtain reliable and timely
information on, for example, on stocks levels and transport costs (Galtier et al., ibid).The sustainability of MIS is often an overlooked issue also and needs equal attention. Zhang et
al., (2016) highlighted the success of MIS in China (in terms of usability/sustainability) has been
due to the strong public driven support (i.e. state funding) and the fact that information provided
by various MIS is freely available and there are no fees levied. Funding and financial
sustainability have also been cited as a major issue for MIS in many Sub-Saharan African (SSA)
countries (Chiatoh, and Gyau, 2016).