Mapping the climate and agronomic digital advisory services landscape in West and Central Africa: A step towards making food systems productive and climate resilient

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338010 December 3, 2025 14 / 20 only about a quarter of digital technology users in Sub-Saharan Africa [33], limiting their access to advisory services [19,34]. Lack of communication assets and social group participation also reduces their access to climate information [35,36]. • Data harmonization and management remain major challenges across the study countries, with fragmented systems, missing metadata, and weak regulatory frameworks limiting interoperability (Table 4). In most countries, significant gaps persist: the DRC and Burundi lack centralized repositories, Ivory coast has no harmonization framework, and Nigeria faces regulatory shortcomings in data privacy and integration. Although Ghana’s National Data Sharing Policy and Rwanda’s Open Data Portal show initial progress, both remain at early or fragmented stage. These gaps constrain effective data sharing and reduce the potential of digital services for decision-making in agriculture. • Finally, lack of trust across value chains—including contract breaches, unfair pricing, and corruption—discourages adop- tion of digital solutions. To address this, some tools have introduced certification and traceability systems, blockchain for land and financial transactions, and platforms for improved information sharing. In summary, while extension systems, supportive policies, and business innovations provide a growing toolkit for digital agriculture, their effectiveness is undermined by systemic barriers. These include weak infrastructure, high connectivity

costs, limited digital literacy, gender and social inequalities, financing gaps, and low trust within value chains. Overcom- ing these challenges will be crucial for scaling climate and agronomic digital advisory services equitably and sustainably across the study countries (Table 4). 3.2.4. Existing dissemination tools. The spread of digital agricultural services has been made largely through bundled services. Review suggests that these services were made available by combining CIS-CSA based agro- advisory with other services, such as (1) telephony services (such as ESOKO, VIAMO and FarmerLine); (2) logistics, value chain traceability and payment services (Caargil and FarmerLine); (3) financial and insurance services (AgUnity and AgroCenta); (4) electronic services for financial transactions; and (5) the logistics solutions for access to post- harvest infrastructure. Bundled services have been a model that has been able to meet various needs of a target user by complementing their offer with complementary services. 4. Discussion This study presents the evolving landscape of digital agricultural solutions (DAGs) across six countries in WCA. The findings underscore both the urgency of adapting to intensifying climate risks and the opportunities that digital innovations offer with respect to enhancing agricultural productivity, climate resilience and decision-making for smallholder farmers in the study area. The integration of near-real time, accurate and personalized agricultural information—especially weather

forecasts, pest alerts, market information, and agronomic advice—enables farmers to plan farm operations more effec- tively and reduce risks associated with extreme weather events, pests, and diseases [37–39]. Crop insurance services help farmers manage financial risks by providing protection against losses from extreme weather, pests, and diseases. A recent study investigated the ways in which public climate adaption planning in sub-Saharan Africa can be aided by cli- mate risk information generated in the context of insurance-related operations [40]. The authors found that although there Table 4. Challenges identified in complementing digital agriculture solutions. Country* Costs of services Data harmonization Data privacy Digital literacy Languages Local capacity Ghana 35 24 27 28 36 35 Nigeria 31 26 32 36 39 29 Rwanda 23 15 19 18 19 25 *Information not available for Burundi, Ivory coast, and the DRC https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338010.t004