Divisi
Divisi for NGOs & Donor Programmes
Baseline, midline, endline —
and nothing in between.
Field-level evidence across the whole programme, not three expensive snapshots of it — a dated record of what participants did, which is what a resilience claim has to stand on.
Writing an MEL budget that buys three snapshots of a four-year programme? Applying is free, and a person reads it within a working day or two.
Your monitoring budget buys three photographs of a four-year programme, taken by enumerators, from memory, months after the decisions that mattered. When the mid-term review asks which fields changed and which households steadied their yields, the honest answer is that nobody was watching in between.
a look inside
Every field, drawn as the farmer walked it
Coloured by how each crop is doing against what was committed at planting, with the reason on the row beside it — so the output is a route for the week rather than a number to escalate.
The cohort map and the risk list, at per-field resolution. Illustration — the layout, colours and figures a partner account shows, drawn rather than sampled, because a real cohort belongs to the farmers in it.
the ground you are standing on
Two numbers, neither of them ours
What management change alone is worth across 14,773 Sub-Saharan smallholder fields — the size of the prize your programme is chasing, measured independently of anyone selling you a tool.
Nature Communications, 2024Farmers per extension officer in Malawi, about eight times the FAO's recommended ceiling — the gap most programmes are implicitly hired to fill, at a ratio no field staffing plan reaches.
FAO
The exit strategy is that the farmer keeps the tool
Every programme document has a sustainability section, and most of them are aspirational. This one is structural: the app your participants install is free, it stays free, and it is not switched off when the grant closes. The crop guidance, the task timings, the weather warnings and the records belong to the farmer and go on working after your last field visit — which is how a household holds its yield in the seasons nobody is funding. What ends at close-out is your view of the cohort, not their tool.
See what participants get, feature by feature →See it on your own phone → One link, both stores — it opens the right one for your device.
impact, and the balance sheet
The pressures your funder is already asking about
Climate resilience, youth and gender, steadier household incomes, and evidence that something changed are what every agriculture programme is now judged on — and all of them want field-level observation the budget cannot usually afford.
01
Climate resilience, delivered rather than described
The adaptation component of the logframe is something participants actually receive, and it keeps arriving after the grant closes. A crop carried through a dry spell is income the household keeps, which is the resilience outcome a funder is really asking about.
How Participants get weather warnings tied to the crop standing in their own field, and the guidance to act on them, free and offline-capable.
02
Hectares under practice, measured
A reach figure that survives a verification mission, and a denominator your outcome indicators can honestly sit on top of.
How Boundaries are walked on foot with the phone's GPS and closed into a polygon, so area is a sum of measured shapes.
03
Youth and gender, per ward
The disaggregation the results framework demands, at the boundary the donor's own map uses, without a midline survey to produce it.
How Gender split and age bands including the under-35 share, per administrative area, withheld wherever a cell is too thin to describe without describing a person.
04
Evidence between the waves
An evaluator reads a series instead of three cross-sections. It will not manufacture attribution, and it makes the design that does far cheaper to defend.
How Operations completed and missed, dated photographs, and condition against projection — continuously, across the whole programme area rather than a sampled subset.
How this maps to the Sustainable Development Goals — read the alignment →
What the reporting looks like
Hectares under practice, measured
Participants walk their field boundaries with the phone's GPS, so “hectares reached” is a sum of measured polygons rather than a sum of declarations. That single change survives a verification mission better than any narrative in the report.
Evidence between the waves
Operations completed and missed, photographs with dates, crop condition against projection — continuously, for the whole programme area, not just for the sampled households. The mid-term review reads a series instead of a snapshot.
The splits the logframe asks for
Age bands including farmers under 35 — the AU's definition of a youth farmer and the one most national policies use — plus crop mix, planted against not planted, and the area figures, per ward and per district. Reported at the boundary your donor's map already uses.
A do-no-harm story that holds up
Aggregates stand on at least ten farms, with a rule conservative enough that a suppressed cell cannot be recovered by subtraction. Per-field detail requires the farmer's own consent, per field and per season, revocable from their phone. That is a data-protection annexe you can write with a straight face.
How a programme runs on it
Apply with the programme area
Who you are, where you work, what the intervention is. A person reads every application. Registered organisations get aggregate access free.
Load the area you already have
Upload the project boundary as GeoJSON or a zipped shapefile — your GIS officer already holds it — or choose districts and wards from the administrative tree, or draw the catchment on the map.
Enrol participants with a code
A six-character code on a poster, a radio spot or a WhatsApp message. Participants install the free app, walk their field and accept the terms. Applications arrive in a queue you approve.
Report from the series, not the survey
Condition through the season, work done and missed, demographic splits, and a close-out when the season ends — with the raw geometry available as GeoJSON for your own analysis.
what your account shows
Resolution follows the relationship
Your programme reads at field resolution for the farmers who joined it, and at area resolution everywhere else in your catchment. Both are on the same map.
Area figures
District and ward totals
Counts, hectares, crop mix, condition and the demographic split for the areas your mandate covers — grouped by the administrative boundaries your own statistics already use. Verification is what moves an account from district totals to ward totals.
Field detail
One field, its season, its evidence
The crop, its walked boundary, its projection, the work done and missed, and the dated photographs — for the farmers who joined your programme and agreed to it, per field and per season. Enrolment is how an account reaches this, which is why the invitation flow is part of the product.
The floor under every published figure
Every area figure stands on at least ten farms. Where a ward holds fewer, it merges into its district and is republished there rather than being hidden — so the map sharpens as coverage grows and never goes blank, and no published set lets a suppressed one be recovered by subtraction. That floor is what makes serving these figures legitimate, and it is why a data-protection review of this is short.
What it costs an organisation
Free for registered organisations
NGOs, foundations, cooperatives and donor-funded programmes: the map, ward and district figures, demographic splits and GeoJSON, with no seat limit and no expiry.
Per-field access is scoped case by case
Where participants enrol and consent by field, it is usually a modest line in a programme budget rather than an institutional licence.
The costed part is the rollout
Enrolment campaigns, materials, translation, training your field staff and supporting participants through their first season. People's time, quoted per engagement — and the part that actually decides whether a programme reaches its numbers.
What you can count on
Attribution stays where it belongs, with your evaluation design. What this supplies is the input that design has always been short of: a dense, dated, geolocated record of what was actually done on real fields, across the whole programme area rather than a sampled subset of it. Bring your own counterfactual and this makes it far cheaper to defend — it is a much better instrument than it is an argument.
Questions worth asking
not quite you?
Same platform, different job
Plenty of organisations are two of these at once. The access model is identical; what changes is what the figures are for.
Start with the map, not the contract.
Tell us who you are, where you work and what you are trying to see. We read every application ourselves and scope the rollout with you.
International and national NGOs, donor-funded agriculture and resilience programmes, foundations, faith-based organisations, farmer cooperatives and unions, development finance implementers.
Already a partner? Sign in to your dashboard
