Cross-Country Synthesis of the Generic Design Issues of First- and Second-Generation Agricultural Market Information

Models

Dr. Andrew Muganga Kizito

Department of Statistical Methods and Actuarial ScienceMakerere University

September 15, 2011

1

Motivation of Study

Problems of Early Generation MIS (1980s-1990s)

• Did not meet user needs

• Were not financially sustainable

Environment

• Change in government policies

• Evolution of markets

• Spread of ICT

• Emergence of many MIS models

• What MIS models to invest in

Contribution of Study

• No systematic framework for analysis of MIS models

2

Key Questions

• What evidence supports the premises that new MIS models are likely to meet user needs and become financially sustainable in comparison to the first-generation MIS models?

• How have different MIS models tried to address the generic design issues and what are the relative advantages in addressing those issues?

• What are the implications for stakeholders in terms of promoting and supporting different types of MIS?

3

Sources of Information and Methods

1. Literature review of MIS in USA, Asia, and Africa

2. Case studies of MIS in Mozambique, Ethiopia, and Zambia

3. E-survey of MIS practitioners in Africa and Asia (India) in collaboration with CIRAD and INRA in France.

4. World Bank world development indicators

5. Meetings and a workshop on MIS in France in March 2010

6. Past experience from working on MIS in the East Africa

4

Cross-Country Synthesis of the Generic Design Issues of Emerging and Traditional MIS Models

Key structural design issues / premises

1. Perceived Mandate

2. Institutional home, organization, and coordination

3. Nature of commodities covered

Key conduct design issues / premises

1. Information Provided and Frequency

2. ICT used in transmission and diffusion

3. Funding Strategies

4. Data collection methods used

5. Quality control methods

6. Feedback mechanisms used

5

Types and Number of MIS in Study

Name of Types and Countries Number

State or Public-based MIS (First Generation MIS) 11

AGMARIS (Philippines), AMIC (Zambia), ECX* (Ethiopia), FVMIS & NASS (USA), IHMIS (Indonesia), Siarm (Senegal), SIMA (Mozambique), SIMA & SIML(Niger), SIPAG (Guinea Conakry)Non-Government-based MIS (Second Generation MIS)

Farmer organization-based MIS OMA* (Mali), SIEL (Madagascar), ZNFU (Zambia)

3

Private-based MIS 4

Esoko (Ghana), Infotrade (Uganda), KACE (Kenya), RML (India )Trader and NGO-based MIS 3

AVI (Burkina Faso, Mali, & Niger), OdR (Madagascar), RATIN (Kenya)Total*=Exceptions

21

Structure: MIS perceived mandate (Aims and Objectives and Clientele)

Number and PercentGov’t (11) Non Gov’t (10) Total (21)Efficient marketing 82 50 67Attain transparent markets 55 60 57Making better policy and monitoring 73 20 48Food security planning 55 30 43

• Public MIS provide information for policy formulation and food security planning

• Both models of MIS consider farmers (100%) , traders (90%), and governments as their clientele (90%)

• Does and Don'ts: Make Mandate Clear Affect Impact Assessment

7

Structure: Provision of complementary services

 Number and Percent Gov’t (11)Non Gov’t (10) Total (21)

Education/training 55 70 62Market Studies 45 60 52Extension services (advise) 27 70 48Producer organization support 27 60 43Provision of input/seeds 18 60 38

Some services in Non-government MIS generate information and reduce costs sustainability

Structure: Designing incentives for MIS staff

Non-government MIS face more “high-power incentives” than public MIS to deal with poor incentive problems such as:

– Low staff salaries (e.g., SIMA Mozambique, AMIC-Zambia)

– Fixed staff salaries

– Excessive bureaucracy

– Reliance on behavioral monitoring instead of output-based monitoring

9

Geographical Coverage, Centralization /Decentralization and Nature of commodities covered

 Number and Percent Gov’t (11)Non Gov’t (10)

Total (21)

Geographical CoverageNational level 91 60 76Part of a country 9 50 29Regional level (Many countries) 36 30 33Centralization /DecentralizationCentralized Processing 55 80 67Decentralized Processing 9 0 5Both Centralized and Decentralized 36 20 29Nature of commodities covered• All MIS deal in Staple crops (apart from ECX-Coffee)

Conduct: Information Provided and Frequency

Products (N and %) Gov’t (11) Non-gov’t (10) Total (21)Market News 100 100 100Market Analysis 27 30 29Business Reports 0 0 0Information providedWholesale price 73 80 76Retail price 73 70 71Traded volume (qualitative ) 73 30 52Frequency of ProvisionWeekly 73 60 67Daily 36 50 43•No evidence that 2nd G MIS provide more and frequent information

11

Conduct: ICT used in Dissemination of Information

N and %age Gov’t (11) Non-gov’t (10) Total (21)Modern ICTEmail 82 70 76Web 64 70 67SMS (Cell Phone) 27 70 48Traditional ICT      Rural radio 55 60 57National radio 64 40 52Newspapers 45 50 48Hand delivery 64 20 43• Both models use both traditional and modern ICT to diffuse • Non-government MIS mostly use modern ICT to transmit • Most government MIS mostly use traditional ICT to transmit

12

Conduct: Data Collection Methods

N and %age Gov’t (11)Non-gov’t

(10) Total (21)Structured questionnaires 64 50 57Observation by reporters 55 60 57Telephone interviews 36 30 33 Mailed Questionnaires 18 30 24Administrative/ secondary 18 20 19Obligatory declaration of information 18 10 14Wiki approaches 0 10 5Byproduct of transactions 9 0 5Limited Wiki-Approaches of information collection in all MIS types

Conduct: MIS Funding Strategies

N and %age Gov’t (11) Non-gov’t(10) Total (21)Donors funding 64 90 76Government funding 100 10 57Subscriptions Fees, SMS Revenue 36 70 52In-Kind Contributions 18 20 19Sponsorships from Private Companies 0 40 19

• All MIS types heavily depend on external donor funding• Non-government MIS are aggressive in seeking private-

firm sponsorships

14

Conduct: Quality Control Methods and Feedback Mechanisms Used

Quality Control Methods Used (N and %age) Gov’t (11)

Non-gov’t (10)

Total (21)

Verification and tests after data capture 55 80 67Training courses for data collectors 64 60 62Regular supervision and monitoring 55 70 62• Non-government MIS stated to use more quality control methods

than government MISFeedback Mechanism Used Users' assessment /needs surveys 55 60 57Customer satisfaction surveys 36 50 43Meetings with users 36 50 43• Non-government MIS stated to use more feedback methods

compared to government MIS.

15

Implications for MIS design

1. Environment in which they operate matters for all MIS types

2. Great heterogeneity among MIS in terms of design issues

3. No explanatory value in government- vs. non-government MIS

4. Designing Incentives for MIS Staff

– Increasing wages

– Autonomy and residual claimancy

– Hiring locally

– From behavioral to output monitoring

– Training MIS staff

16

Implications for MIS design

5. Based on information provided and needs of users

– Provision of price and quantity forecasts

– Specialization in the Production of MIS Products

6. Providing information subsidies to poor users

17

The End

Thank You

Comments and Questions Are Welcome

18