Impact of Agri-ProFocus on Farmer's entrepreneurship, Uganda
Transcript of Impact of Agri-ProFocus on Farmer's entrepreneurship, Uganda
Unraveling multi-stakeholder platforms and their impact on farmer
entrepreneurs in Africa – Case studies from Uganda
Noor Ali | Domenico Dentoni | Jos Bijman | Wageningen University
Overview
Setting the Scene – ‘where is the opportunity and why’
Conceptual Design – ‘what’
Technical Design – ‘How’
Results – ‘what did we achieve’
Conclusion & Further Steps – ‘what does it mean’
Research objectives
Describe distinguishing network structures, governance mechanisms and
activities within Agri-ProFocus (APF).
Give insights on extent and pathways through which APF’s financial services
via marketplace events impact farm entrepreneurs.
Develop testable propositions suggesting how the APF organisational
structure relates to its impact on farm entrepreneurs.
Implications on how platform may need to be reorganised (if needed) to
enhance impact
Multi-stakeholder platforms
Farm entrepreneurship
1
2
Further research
Research Strategies | methods & sources
Theoretical sampling
Triangulation of literature & data sources: APF, member orgs, farmers
Grounded theory approach
APF personnel (4)Agri-Hub
members (14)Farmers (32)
Non-Participants
(14)
Control (06)
Participants (12)-Local NGOs (04)
-International NGOs
(03)
-Banks (03)
-MFIs/SACCOs (02)
-Government (01)
-University (01)
- D. of Programmes
- N.F Uganda
- Country
coordinator
- Asst. country
coordinator
02 crops
02 regions
05 districts
10 FOs
In-depth face to face interviews & observations
Secondary documents – APF reports, plans
NP: same FO as Ps
but did not attend
C: Neither connected to APF nor any member org
Multi-level network of multi-stakeholder platforms
Face to face interactions and their frequency
Online country level platforms
Involvement of local private sector
De-centralised decision making at Agri Hubs
Visible presence of network brokers
Results | What makes Agri-ProFocus different?
Motivation to join Agri-Hub Uganda
● Networking and information sharing
● International NGOs – delivery of benefits to farmers, connectivity to
farmer communities, advocacy of key issues
● Local NGOs – Capacity development of team, utilisation of shared
resources
● Banks/MFIs – Marketing (increase of potential customer bases,
product promotion), competitive edge
Key message – Different motivating factors may be employed or accentuated
within various stakeholder groups to boost their participation
Results | Perspective of & impact on stakeholder organisations
Results | Impact of APF’s structure’s on stakeholder organisations
Networking
Information
sharing
Promotion &
marketing
Capacity building
Multi level structure &
private sector
Online platforms
Visible broker
‘One – stop shop’
Decision-making at the
Agri-Hub level
Regional ‘marketplace
events’
International NGO
Local NGO
Commercial enterprises
Other
Propositions for further
research
Views on obstacles for farm-bank deals
● Banks accustomed to deal with bigger, commercial farms
● Reluctance to give loans to smallholder subsistence farmers and FOs
because:
● Agriculture is inherently a high risk business
● FOs & farmers lack formal structures and documents
● Inaccessible due to distance and transportation costs
● Other factors : lower education level, older age etc.
● Strict and complicated requirements (also most reported by farmers!)
● Ignorance, misperception, mistrust, fear among farmers
● Lack of allocation in annual Ugandan budget (3.4 percent in 2013)
Results | Perspective of & impact on stakeholder organisations
Results | Perspective of & impact on stakeholder organisations
Banks/MFIs :
- Accustomed to bigger farmers
- Lack of awareness of
stakeholder requirements
- Reluctance
- Complicated procedures
- Who bears the risk?
FOs and Farmers:
- Mistrust, fear, misperceptions
- Lack of awareness of bank
requirements
- Lack of formal structures
Smaller In distant/rural
areas
Key message – Identification of a clear need by stakeholders to bring
banks/MFIs closer to smallholders, while assist farmers to improve their
individual and collective systems
Results | Impact of marketplace events on farm entrepreneurs
Invitation to selected
cooperatives/ farmers’
groups to nominate
representative farmers
as participants (P)
Attendance of
selected
participants in the
agribusiness event
Dissemination of
knowledge from
participant to non-
participant farmers
(NP) within respective
cooperative/ group
Individual and
collective FO
benefits
Increase in awareness
of banks, MFIs and loan
procedures among
participant farmers (P)
APF’s planned impact pathway – Farmer organisations
Selected farmers
different than rest
-Socioeconomic
Limited transfer of
knowledge
Positive but limited
impact observed
- 6 out of 10 FOs
applied or plan to
apply
- No FO successful so
far.
- No individual farmer
applied for loan
Fear and lack of
knowledge
among NPs
1. Participants found more aware, less afraid than Non
Participants
2. Participants socioeconomically very different than
Non Participants
Lack of awareness and fear:
‘Banks have a lot of requirements’
‘ If I won’t pay, I will be arrested’
‘ They will take away my land’
‘ Their interest rates are very high’
‘ Banks are located very far’
‘ I don’t know enough about banks’
Results | Differences between Participants and Non-Participants
8
4
2
5 5
33
1 1
3
8
33
1
0
Participant Non-Participant Control
Strict/complicated requirements
Fear of punishment
Reluctance of banks
Lack of awareness about loan procedures
High interest rates
Key message: Participants more aware of requirements than Non-Participants
Results | Differences among Participants and Non-Participants
Status indicator Participants (n=12)Non-Participants
(n=14)
Gender (nr. of male) 10/12 7/14
Age (avg. age group) 31-40, max age 48 >50, 4 respondents >60
Education level6/12 – secondary3/12- post secondary
4/14 – secondary4/14 – No education
Family size (>7) 6/12 9/14
Dropouts (at least 1 in) 1/12 8/14
Land owned (>5 acres) 8/12 6/14
Animals (No. of cows) 2.41 per farmer 0.5 per farmer
Crop varieties (total per category)
24 10
Association with NGOs, groups (total per category)
14 04
Awareness of banks,financial terms
18 11
How may impact be enhanced?
Pre-event sensitisation of participants
Post-event follow up to ensure transfer of knowledge
Assistance in documentation & application procedures
Banks/MFIs to provide correct and complete information
Adapt to requirements of smallholders
Conclusion | Key opportunities for further research
Distribute logistical costs among member organisations
Accountability and incentivisation of knowledge transfer among farmer
Pre-selection and preparation of women farmers by local member
organisations
Ensure transfer of only complete and accurate information to farmers
Encourage banks/MFIs to use online platforms for promotion of products
Conclusion | Some steps APF may consider if propositions hold valid
P1: Increased transfer of knowledge from Ps to NPs
P2: Increased participation of women
P3: Decreased fear among farmers
Train FOs and farmers via local NGOs on topics such as book keeping and
registrations
Encourage NGO-banks collaboration for translation of application documents
Develop standardised procedures to delegate responsibilities while keeping
checks for quality (e.g. Procedure for evaluation of vendors/suppliers)
Conclusion | Some steps APF may consider if propositions hold valid
P5:More autonomy to local committees
P4: Adoption of pro-smallholder approach by banks/MFIs
Thank you –
Question & Comments?