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?