Researchers have recently begun to rigorously test for the effectiveness of different ICTs at reaching and benefiting farmers, focusing primarily on the transmission of price information via ICT. Radio, a longstanding method of communicating with farmers, has led to increased farm-gate prices for producers and reduced information asymmetries between buyers and sellers (Svensson and Yanagizawa 2009). Internet stations with agricultural market information ( _eChoupals_ ) have been shown to improve the returns received by farmers in Madhya Pradesh, India (Goyal 2010). As cell phone connectivity expands, an increasing number of farmers have access to a powerful ICT in their own hands. In some cases, producers use phones to communicate with buyers and with one another to acquire and disseminate price information. Jensen (2007) finds that mobile phones allowed fishermen and onshore buyers to communicate supply and price information, resulting in higher profits, lower consumer prices, and less waste in Kerala state, India. In a study of grain traders in Niger, Aker (2008) finds that the introduction of cell phone coverage in two markets reduced price variation between the two, ultimately increasing trader profits, decreasing consumer price, and increasing total welfare. In a companion study, Aker and Fafchamps (2010) find that cell phone coverage also reduces intraannual price variation for producers.

Both public and private sector actors are expressing interest in using mobile phone technology to deliver information to farmers in developing countries. A rigorous evaluation of such a program was done by Fafchamps and Minten (2011). The evaluation did not find any robust effects of receiving text messages provided by Reuters Market Light (RML) on producer prices or input use for farmers of five crops in Maharashtra state, India. Cole and Hunt (2010) and Camacho and Conover (2011) assess similar interventions in India and Colombia, respectively. Individually, none of these studies finds a substantial impact of price or weather information on crop choices, revenues, or profits. These findings suggest that different content and methods of delivery should be experimented with, and different methods of evaluation used. Moreover, more attention should be given to the under-investigated, distinct, and potentially complex issue of ICT use in support of agricultural production and production technologies, as distinct from marketing information _._ Young people are particularly well placed to accelerate change in the use of ICT and to benefit from it, but framing relevant questions draws on learning acquired in good quality primary schools, coupled with practice in imagining states of the world other than ones already experienced. At present, most African educational systems are unfortunately far from delivering high quality basic education. While enrollment rates for primary school are increasing, empirical evidence confirms that children in these schools do not learn much (UWEZO Tanzania 2011). To equip young Africans with the skills needed for success in the four pathways for agricultural employment, schools must do a better job of providing them with basic skills for any endeavor. Foremost among these are reading, writing, numeracy, and the ability to use digital technology to access and interpret information. Beyond these basics, the skills requirements for those in pathways 1 and 2 may differ from those required in pathways 3 and 4. This section describes recent initiatives and changes in “schools of thought” regarding the role and delivery of both basic and agricultural education, agricultural extension, and other innovative training and R&D models. As with some of the finance mechanisms discussed earlier, many of these programs are still experimental, and have not been rigorously evaluated or tested for their effectiveness or sustainability on a larger scale.

30