Welcome to the second question of the forum. Under this question our experts will have the opportunity to share their successfull experiences with ICTs for resilience. We are of course also looking forward to read about the experiences from all the members of the Community of Practice! Do not hesitate to ask the experts or contributers specific questions on the experiences they have shared. Anyone who shares an experience can add links to his/her post to documents or websites with more information. And again - let us know if you would have any question for us!
Walter de OliveiraFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsMozambique
Hello colleagues. Just to start today's discussion, I would like to share our experience in using ICT to support smallholder farmers in Mozambique. As soon as I manage to understand how to attach a document, I will share it with you
Using ICT to Improve Access to Agricultural Inputs for Family Farmers in Mozambique
About 80% of Mozambique's population depends on agriculture as their main source of income. However, agriculture (including livestock, forestry and fisheries) is the sector that contributes less to the country's GDP, indicating that the productivity of the agricultural sector is very low compared to other sectors of the economy.
The gap between demand and supply of financing for family farmers in Mozambique is very large and affects the majority of farmers in the country. With about 3.8 million family farmers producing approximately 95% of national agricultural production and cultivating an average of 1.5 hectares/family, family farming in Mozambique is responsible for ensuring good part of the food and nutritional security of the country, and is responsible for employing about 86% of labour force at national level.
In many cases, farmers are unable to buy inputs at the right time and in the right amounts. The lack of seasonal credit lines often forces farmers to sell to middlemen at a low price. Moreover, farmers who are already highly exposed to natural disasters go into debt with few prospects to break free of this burden.
The Government of Mozambique and FAO agree that “smart subsidies" programmes through the use of vouchers, can be a powerful tool to facilitate access to seeds, fertilizers and other inputs needed for production.
Rural extension, when practiced effectively, can help solve many of the constraints related to access to finance and therefore support the expansion of the use of agricultural inputs by family farmers.
A combination of financial and extension services can help financial institutions overcome limitations in designing and distributing financial products suitable for family farmers. For example, the agricultural extension service could assist farmers in obtaining and using credits through value chain development programs; this would result in an institutional strengthening of the public sector and the creation of a favourable environment for the entry of financial institutions.
When combined with financial instruments (e.g. vouchers, credit lines, crop insurance, etc.) agricultural extension services can play an important role in mitigating risk and increasing the confidence of farmers in financial institutions.
It also requires a better coordination between rural extension services (public and private) and development partners along the supply and demand process in order to help to share perspectives, disclose financial instruments and provide technical assistance that simultaneously addresses the various constraints of the value chains.
In short, there is a great opportunity to boost the development of local economies through specific policies (e.g. increased productivity, promotion of mechanization for small-scale farmers, access to credit and markets, agribusiness, etc.) in support to family farming.
We know however that there are a number of barriers that must be removed in order to use the most of the farmer’s productive potential. In Mozambique, the percentage of farmers with access to credit has declined steadily over the past 10 years and inefficiencies in the production and distribution chain reduced the competitiveness of domestic products. The limited development of small and medium-scale agro-industry further reduces market opportunities for family farmers. With no market prospects and no support for hedging, it is difficult for farmers, especially small farmers, to have access to the capital needed to invest and expand their farms.
Bearing in mind the above-mentioned barriers, FAO launched at the beginning of the agricultural season 2015/2016, an electronic voucher scheme in order to improve market access for agricultural inputs (mainly seeds and fertilizers) and the distribution of quality agricultural inputs through the involvement of various agro-dealers.
The electronic voucher system is a financial inclusion and a flexible market development tool that allows farmers to buy certain quantities and types of inputs from providers (agro-dealers) that accept the vouchers as payment. The agro-dealers redeem vouchers with a profit margin previously agreed.
In other words, the electronic voucher is a credit to enable farmers to access and use improved inputs to increase their yields. It is simply a discount for the purchase of inputs, co-financed by the beneficiary farmer.
A significant advantage of the electronic voucher system is that farmers will have more freedom to decide what, where and when to buy their inputs, thus ensuring that they are the main decision makers in the process.
The electronic voucher scheme, the first of its kind in Mozambique, has been tested in Manica Province and is gradually replacing the "paper voucher" which has been used by FAO in Manica, Zambezia, Nampula and Sofala provinces since 2013.
The electronic voucher should ensure (i) increased access to and use of improved inputs to increase production, know-how, food security and income of family farmers; (Ii) the development of the marketing and distribution sectors of seeds and fertilizers.
It is expected that the voucher system could also help in the management of other inputs and services provided to farmers by state institutions and cooperation partners, and in the long term, help in the development of an efficient private sector input distribution sector.
The program targets two groups of beneficiaries; (I) small emerging farmers and (ii) subsistence farmers. Special attention is given to rural women and women heads of families.
How the e-Voucher Works in Mozambique?
The electronic voucher is an alternative to the paper voucher using an electronic technology. Recipients receive an electronic card that contains a subsidy and is activated upon payment of the beneficiary's contribution. The programme is implemented in 11 districts of four provinces in Mozambique:
→ Manica: Barue, Gondola, Manica and Sussundenga
→ Sofala: Buzi, Gorongosa, Maringue and Nhamatanda
→ Zambezia: Alto Molocue and Gurué
→ Nampula: Ribaue
Types of Packages
Package A: Subsistence Farmers
Approximately 35 USD for the purchase of OPV seeds of maize and beans and post-harvest insecticide.
Farmer’s contribution = 30% of the value of the package
Package B: Emerging Farmers
Approximately 130 USD for the purchase of seeds of maize (hybrid or OPV), beans, oleaginous, fertilizers, etc.
Farmer’s contribution = 50% of the value of the package
The pdf with more information from Walter de Oliveira - FAO - Mozambique can be downloaded here
ps. To all participants - you can upload your documents by creating a knowledge based item or send them to me ([email protected]) and I will do it for you and provide you with a link so you can add it direcly to your post !
Thanks for this fine description of the e-voucher scheme. Some lessons learned from the e-voucher scheme in Malawi during a recent evaluation http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m8qj.pdf (see Annex 2 - second pilot) include;
1. Training of farmers as well as the participating agrodealers is critical. There were farmers that didn't realize their scratch card was unique to them so inadvertantly exchanged their scratch card for somebody else's scratch card when villagers would congregate. Also, they didn't realize they could damage the scratch card with sweat and dirt if they carried it in their pocket. Also, the agrodealers wanted more training on how to navigate the drop down menus on their phone as well as on the problem solving protocol with the Ministry of Ag.
2. The agrodealers almost universally lost money. Essentially they subsidized the e-voucher scheme. Yet they all participated in the second season. To our obvious query about why they participated in the second season they revealed they did not have the option to not particpate because voucher subsidies (whether paper or electronic) constituted upwards of 85% of their overall business activity. It seems the agrodealers were the unsung heroes of this two year e-voucher scheme!
3. One reason the agrodealers lost money was due to lack of connectivity. Transactions also took a long time - and therefore often 'timed out' - because of the numerous steps involved to navigate the user menu.
In spite of the mixed reviews from farmers and agrodealers it seemed they all recognized the significant advantages of e-vouchers and would embrace the next scheme if the obvious shortfalls were addressed in the program design.
Very true and the fact that there is a disconnect of extension service providers and rural access due to an assumption of the ability to refer online should not be ignored as it is here in Kenya.
We’ve been undertaking work with coffee farming communities in Uganda, looking particularly at how mobile could be used to improve the resilience of coffee cooperatives.
But, before diving straight into ICT intervention, we first did two things:
a) Benchmarked the resilience of the cooperatives using our “RABIT” (Resilience Assessment Benchmarking and Impact Toolkit) tools.
b) Benchmarked the contribution of ICTs to the cooperatives’ resilience.
Combining those two – particularly looking for those areas of resilience that were weak and in which there was little use of ICTs so far – we produced a prioritisation plan for use of ICTs to further strengthen agricultural resilience.
Thanks Richard for the reminder that benchmarking can test assumptions and highlight challenges or issues that may have been overlooked. Then to use the assessment results to form a plan with clear priorities. It all sounds so simple but these steps can often be lost in the excitement to just get something deployed.
Thank you for today's contributions. Very interesting experiences are shared and there are even opportunities to compare similar experiences. We are looking forward to more tomorrow.
Please let us know about your successfull experience on the use of ICTs for agriculture and tell us in detail WHY is was successful. What was done to make it successfull.
Thanks so much for all your contributions thus far.
My comments here tie together questions 1 and 2.
Under question 1’s discussions on resilience, SHARBENDU and MALEPLA, among others, mention human centered design and the need for designing ICT solutions that match actual needs of communities on the ground (esp.). RICHARD HEEKS asks whether resilience is ability to recover from short-term shocks or adapting and transforming to respond to trends and enable prevention of future shocks. I think resilience means both, I agree with HEEKS that the latter is particularly crucial. For it is the key to a community’s ability to adapt and respond through its own initiative and on its own terms (essentially, the key to an authentic resilience).
To enable this authentic resilience, or the ability of a community to drive its own resilient behavior, we need local communities, institutions, and individuals to have the skills, knowledge, and infrastructure to use and deploy solutions(ICTs-based and otherwise) on their own terms. They need to be able to respond autonomously to the demands and needs they themselves identify within their own communities without suffering the lag time and miscommunication (ie. NON human centered design) that so often accompanies reliance on external support (be it subject matter expertise, technology infrastructure, or funding).
So this brings me to question 2: In addition to specific short-term applications like early warning systems, e-vouchers, and real-time data collection, ICTs can support a “long view” and help develop that local human capital and technical capacity necessary for authentic community resilience.
National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) repeatedly demonstrate their ability to do just that.
Through the World Bank, much of our work on ICTs and resilience deploys first through last mile digital and mobile connectivity and works with communities to use that connectivity on their terms, where agriculture applications and digital financial services play a central role. Through these engagements, NRENs have repeatedly contributed to achieving both these goals.
Though it manifests in several oraganizational forms, an NREN is typically a non-profit consortium of member universities that operates and manages its own broadband network connecting universities, much like a community run ISP, or a community network. NRENs also tend to offer cloud computing, federated ID, eLibraries, and data and research sharing platforms, paired with rural and peri-urban community liaisons based in universities. Particularly in the case of rural institutions that are connected to the NREN network, students and professors act as instrumental “information wayfarers” who a] develop their own technical capacity through their studies and scholarship, and b] forge connections and facilitate information exchange between non-university connected community members who have needs and concerns, and digital entrepreneurs, researchers, or other technical experts connected to the network and/or the universities.
NRENs’ contribution to nationaICT infrastructure and the growth of locally developed ICT applications is notable. In the African context alone (there are regional and national RENs globally), we see NRENs facilitating a growing information exchange between universities and rural/agricultural communities in Uganda (RENU), Kenya (KENET), ZAMBIA (ZAMREN), and Sudan (SUDREN). A new NREN beginning its launch process in Somalia (SOMALIREN) will be an exciting arena to watch.
An area of future work that could deepen NRENs’ contribution to community resilience would be stronger links between NRENs organizational and broadband networks and the digital entrepreneurship ecosystems associated with tech hubs and incubators.
We are also still exploring how best we can work with NRENs and universties to engage even more directly with rural and "off the grid" communities and expand communication and knowledge networks beyond urban spaces, so any comments, questions, or suggestions would be wonderful.
I understand that NREN work is really excellent as far as connectivity is concerned referring to possible ICT applications through the mobile or internet connectivity.
Please go through my contribution for Q4.Till the time develpper for ICT does not meet the rural community in person, understands their challenges, exchanges pains and fun moments and actually merges among their routine, we can not say that we are connected with them 100%. The emotional connections can only be established when a person meets with the counter part heart to heart with mutual understanding and then only the rural community opens up. We have tried one innovative concept and that proved to be game changing. We decided to invite few villagers to the urban homes and explore the urban comforts and amenities along with city tours etc.and also we went to their villages staying with them as per their routine. This personal connection gave tremendous confidence amnng the villagers and they trusted on us and were ready to build long term relationships with them. This connection helped us understand them well as well as explain them the benefits of modern technologies for them.
With the help of NRENs, we can establish the preliminary contacts and plan the direct visits on different occasions happening in the rural which excites them about our arrival and the games of REAL CONNECTIONS are triggered. But, one strong thing should be born into mind that we are not connecting them for just our selfishness but we are connecting them out of love towards the community. Then and then only, the bridge can be established.
I think we can write so many pages on this because myself have pioneered the work of ICT for 8 years by physically visiting more than 500 villages. Please let me know whether I am rightly addressing your query.
Welcome to the second question of the forum. Under this question our experts will have the opportunity to share their successfull experiences with ICTs for resilience. We are of course also looking forward to read about the experiences from all the members of the Community of Practice! Do not hesitate to ask the experts or contributers specific questions on the experiences they have shared. Anyone who shares an experience can add links to his/her post to documents or websites with more information. And again - let us know if you would have any question for us!
Hello colleagues. Just to start today's discussion, I would like to share our experience in using ICT to support smallholder farmers in Mozambique. As soon as I manage to understand how to attach a document, I will share it with you
Using ICT to Improve Access to Agricultural Inputs for Family Farmers in Mozambique
About 80% of Mozambique's population depends on agriculture as their main source of income. However, agriculture (including livestock, forestry and fisheries) is the sector that contributes less to the country's GDP, indicating that the productivity of the agricultural sector is very low compared to other sectors of the economy.
The gap between demand and supply of financing for family farmers in Mozambique is very large and affects the majority of farmers in the country. With about 3.8 million family farmers producing approximately 95% of national agricultural production and cultivating an average of 1.5 hectares/family, family farming in Mozambique is responsible for ensuring good part of the food and nutritional security of the country, and is responsible for employing about 86% of labour force at national level.
In many cases, farmers are unable to buy inputs at the right time and in the right amounts. The lack of seasonal credit lines often forces farmers to sell to middlemen at a low price. Moreover, farmers who are already highly exposed to natural disasters go into debt with few prospects to break free of this burden.
The Government of Mozambique and FAO agree that “smart subsidies" programmes through the use of vouchers, can be a powerful tool to facilitate access to seeds, fertilizers and other inputs needed for production.
Rural extension, when practiced effectively, can help solve many of the constraints related to access to finance and therefore support the expansion of the use of agricultural inputs by family farmers.
A combination of financial and extension services can help financial institutions overcome limitations in designing and distributing financial products suitable for family farmers. For example, the agricultural extension service could assist farmers in obtaining and using credits through value chain development programs; this would result in an institutional strengthening of the public sector and the creation of a favourable environment for the entry of financial institutions.
When combined with financial instruments (e.g. vouchers, credit lines, crop insurance, etc.) agricultural extension services can play an important role in mitigating risk and increasing the confidence of farmers in financial institutions.
It also requires a better coordination between rural extension services (public and private) and development partners along the supply and demand process in order to help to share perspectives, disclose financial instruments and provide technical assistance that simultaneously addresses the various constraints of the value chains.
In short, there is a great opportunity to boost the development of local economies through specific policies (e.g. increased productivity, promotion of mechanization for small-scale farmers, access to credit and markets, agribusiness, etc.) in support to family farming.
We know however that there are a number of barriers that must be removed in order to use the most of the farmer’s productive potential. In Mozambique, the percentage of farmers with access to credit has declined steadily over the past 10 years and inefficiencies in the production and distribution chain reduced the competitiveness of domestic products. The limited development of small and medium-scale agro-industry further reduces market opportunities for family farmers. With no market prospects and no support for hedging, it is difficult for farmers, especially small farmers, to have access to the capital needed to invest and expand their farms.
Bearing in mind the above-mentioned barriers, FAO launched at the beginning of the agricultural season 2015/2016, an electronic voucher scheme in order to improve market access for agricultural inputs (mainly seeds and fertilizers) and the distribution of quality agricultural inputs through the involvement of various agro-dealers.
The electronic voucher system is a financial inclusion and a flexible market development tool that allows farmers to buy certain quantities and types of inputs from providers (agro-dealers) that accept the vouchers as payment. The agro-dealers redeem vouchers with a profit margin previously agreed.
In other words, the electronic voucher is a credit to enable farmers to access and use improved inputs to increase their yields. It is simply a discount for the purchase of inputs, co-financed by the beneficiary farmer.
A significant advantage of the electronic voucher system is that farmers will have more freedom to decide what, where and when to buy their inputs, thus ensuring that they are the main decision makers in the process.
The electronic voucher scheme, the first of its kind in Mozambique, has been tested in Manica Province and is gradually replacing the "paper voucher" which has been used by FAO in Manica, Zambezia, Nampula and Sofala provinces since 2013.
The electronic voucher should ensure (i) increased access to and use of improved inputs to increase production, know-how, food security and income of family farmers; (Ii) the development of the marketing and distribution sectors of seeds and fertilizers.
It is expected that the voucher system could also help in the management of other inputs and services provided to farmers by state institutions and cooperation partners, and in the long term, help in the development of an efficient private sector input distribution sector.
The program targets two groups of beneficiaries; (I) small emerging farmers and (ii) subsistence farmers. Special attention is given to rural women and women heads of families.
How the e-Voucher Works in Mozambique?
The electronic voucher is an alternative to the paper voucher using an electronic technology. Recipients receive an electronic card that contains a subsidy and is activated upon payment of the beneficiary's contribution. The programme is implemented in 11 districts of four provinces in Mozambique:
→ Manica: Barue, Gondola, Manica and Sussundenga
→ Sofala: Buzi, Gorongosa, Maringue and Nhamatanda
→ Zambezia: Alto Molocue and Gurué
→ Nampula: Ribaue
Types of Packages
Package A: Subsistence Farmers
Approximately 35 USD for the purchase of OPV seeds of maize and beans and post-harvest insecticide.
Farmer’s contribution = 30% of the value of the package
Package B: Emerging Farmers
Approximately 130 USD for the purchase of seeds of maize (hybrid or OPV), beans, oleaginous, fertilizers, etc.
Farmer’s contribution = 50% of the value of the package
The pdf with more information from Walter de Oliveira - FAO - Mozambique can be downloaded here
ps. To all participants - you can upload your documents by creating a knowledge based item or send them to me ([email protected]) and I will do it for you and provide you with a link so you can add it direcly to your post !
Thanks for this fine description of the e-voucher scheme. Some lessons learned from the e-voucher scheme in Malawi during a recent evaluation http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m8qj.pdf (see Annex 2 - second pilot) include;
1. Training of farmers as well as the participating agrodealers is critical. There were farmers that didn't realize their scratch card was unique to them so inadvertantly exchanged their scratch card for somebody else's scratch card when villagers would congregate. Also, they didn't realize they could damage the scratch card with sweat and dirt if they carried it in their pocket. Also, the agrodealers wanted more training on how to navigate the drop down menus on their phone as well as on the problem solving protocol with the Ministry of Ag.
2. The agrodealers almost universally lost money. Essentially they subsidized the e-voucher scheme. Yet they all participated in the second season. To our obvious query about why they participated in the second season they revealed they did not have the option to not particpate because voucher subsidies (whether paper or electronic) constituted upwards of 85% of their overall business activity. It seems the agrodealers were the unsung heroes of this two year e-voucher scheme!
3. One reason the agrodealers lost money was due to lack of connectivity. Transactions also took a long time - and therefore often 'timed out' - because of the numerous steps involved to navigate the user menu.
In spite of the mixed reviews from farmers and agrodealers it seemed they all recognized the significant advantages of e-vouchers and would embrace the next scheme if the obvious shortfalls were addressed in the program design.
Very true and the fact that there is a disconnect of extension service providers and rural access due to an assumption of the ability to refer online should not be ignored as it is here in Kenya.
We’ve been undertaking work with coffee farming communities in Uganda, looking particularly at how mobile could be used to improve the resilience of coffee cooperatives.
But, before diving straight into ICT intervention, we first did two things:
a) Benchmarked the resilience of the cooperatives using our “RABIT” (Resilience Assessment Benchmarking and Impact Toolkit) tools.
b) Benchmarked the contribution of ICTs to the cooperatives’ resilience.
Combining those two – particularly looking for those areas of resilience that were weak and in which there was little use of ICTs so far – we produced a prioritisation plan for use of ICTs to further strengthen agricultural resilience.
More details if you’re interested at: www.niccd.org/resilience
Thanks Richard for the reminder that benchmarking can test assumptions and highlight challenges or issues that may have been overlooked. Then to use the assessment results to form a plan with clear priorities. It all sounds so simple but these steps can often be lost in the excitement to just get something deployed.
Thank you for today's contributions. Very interesting experiences are shared and there are even opportunities to compare similar experiences. We are looking forward to more tomorrow.
Please let us know about your successfull experience on the use of ICTs for agriculture and tell us in detail WHY is was successful. What was done to make it successfull.
Thanks so much for all your contributions thus far.
My comments here tie together questions 1 and 2.
Under question 1’s discussions on resilience, SHARBENDU and MALEPLA, among others, mention human centered design and the need for designing ICT solutions that match actual needs of communities on the ground (esp.). RICHARD HEEKS asks whether resilience is ability to recover from short-term shocks or adapting and transforming to respond to trends and enable prevention of future shocks. I think resilience means both, I agree with HEEKS that the latter is particularly crucial. For it is the key to a community’s ability to adapt and respond through its own initiative and on its own terms (essentially, the key to an authentic resilience).
To enable this authentic resilience, or the ability of a community to drive its own resilient behavior, we need local communities, institutions, and individuals to have the skills, knowledge, and infrastructure to use and deploy solutions(ICTs-based and otherwise) on their own terms. They need to be able to respond autonomously to the demands and needs they themselves identify within their own communities without suffering the lag time and miscommunication (ie. NON human centered design) that so often accompanies reliance on external support (be it subject matter expertise, technology infrastructure, or funding).
So this brings me to question 2: In addition to specific short-term applications like early warning systems, e-vouchers, and real-time data collection, ICTs can support a “long view” and help develop that local human capital and technical capacity necessary for authentic community resilience.
National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) repeatedly demonstrate their ability to do just that.
Through the World Bank, much of our work on ICTs and resilience deploys first through last mile digital and mobile connectivity and works with communities to use that connectivity on their terms, where agriculture applications and digital financial services play a central role. Through these engagements, NRENs have repeatedly contributed to achieving both these goals.
Though it manifests in several oraganizational forms, an NREN is typically a non-profit consortium of member universities that operates and manages its own broadband network connecting universities, much like a community run ISP, or a community network. NRENs also tend to offer cloud computing, federated ID, eLibraries, and data and research sharing platforms, paired with rural and peri-urban community liaisons based in universities. Particularly in the case of rural institutions that are connected to the NREN network, students and professors act as instrumental “information wayfarers” who a] develop their own technical capacity through their studies and scholarship, and b] forge connections and facilitate information exchange between non-university connected community members who have needs and concerns, and digital entrepreneurs, researchers, or other technical experts connected to the network and/or the universities.
NRENs’ contribution to nationaICT infrastructure and the growth of locally developed ICT applications is notable. In the African context alone (there are regional and national RENs globally), we see NRENs facilitating a growing information exchange between universities and rural/agricultural communities in Uganda (RENU), Kenya (KENET), ZAMBIA (ZAMREN), and Sudan (SUDREN). A new NREN beginning its launch process in Somalia (SOMALIREN) will be an exciting arena to watch.
An area of future work that could deepen NRENs’ contribution to community resilience would be stronger links between NRENs organizational and broadband networks and the digital entrepreneurship ecosystems associated with tech hubs and incubators.
We are also still exploring how best we can work with NRENs and universties to engage even more directly with rural and "off the grid" communities and expand communication and knowledge networks beyond urban spaces, so any comments, questions, or suggestions would be wonderful.
I understand that NREN work is really excellent as far as connectivity is concerned referring to possible ICT applications through the mobile or internet connectivity.
Please go through my contribution for Q4.Till the time develpper for ICT does not meet the rural community in person, understands their challenges, exchanges pains and fun moments and actually merges among their routine, we can not say that we are connected with them 100%. The emotional connections can only be established when a person meets with the counter part heart to heart with mutual understanding and then only the rural community opens up. We have tried one innovative concept and that proved to be game changing. We decided to invite few villagers to the urban homes and explore the urban comforts and amenities along with city tours etc.and also we went to their villages staying with them as per their routine. This personal connection gave tremendous confidence amnng the villagers and they trusted on us and were ready to build long term relationships with them. This connection helped us understand them well as well as explain them the benefits of modern technologies for them.
With the help of NRENs, we can establish the preliminary contacts and plan the direct visits on different occasions happening in the rural which excites them about our arrival and the games of REAL CONNECTIONS are triggered. But, one strong thing should be born into mind that we are not connecting them for just our selfishness but we are connecting them out of love towards the community. Then and then only, the bridge can be established.
I think we can write so many pages on this because myself have pioneered the work of ICT for 8 years by physically visiting more than 500 villages. Please let me know whether I am rightly addressing your query.