Dirk Landmann (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) – d.h.Landmann@gmail.com
Jo Cadilhon (International Livestock Research Institute) – J.Cadilhon@cgiar.org
Falguni Guharay (International Center for Tropical Agriculture) – f.guharay@cgiar.org
Influence of trust on capacity development
within the members and influenced groups
of the Nicaraguan Learning Alliance (NLA)
Dirk Landmann, Jo Cadilhon, Falguni Guharay
Research questions
• Has the NLA developed the organizational capacities of
cooperatives to support value chain development?
• What is the impact of the NLA’s organization on its expected
outcomes?
• Is the conceptual framework valid to the NLA case?
This document is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution –Non commercial-Share Alike 3.0
Unported License
February 2015
Nicaragua
• 20% of GDP from agriculture
• 28% people working in agriculture
• 4124 agricultural cooperatives
Learning Alliances (LAs)
• Network with different participants (stakeholders)
• Connected through a sector or product of joint interest
Concept
• “Social learning” - interactive process between stakeholders
• “Innovation systems” - changes of a process
NLA
• Network of 10 NGOs, national institutions & CGIAR
• Trains farmers through cooperative network on
agribusiness, strategic orientation and value chains
using Link methodology
Conceptual framework for monitoring LAs
Research method
• Regions covered: Chinandega, Estelí, Jinotega, León,
Madriz, Managua, Masaya, Matagalpa, Nueva Segovia
• Focus group discussions: 3 NLA-Members; 3 Non-
members  qualitative data
• Key informant interviews: 7 NLA-Members; 13 Non-
members  qualitative data
• Individual questionnaire: 38 NLA-Members; 52 Non-
members  quantitative data using 53 Likert scale
statements
• Analysis: factor analysis and multiple linear regression
analysis focusing on trust and capacity development
Conclusions and recommendations
The NLA within the agricultural sector
• Big demand and offer in agricultural capacity development
• NLA method is successful to develop farmers’ capacities
• NLA is not more successful than other networks in capacity
development
• Perception of NLA depends on the direct partner
Results
• Most important crops: coffee (46%); basic grains (37%)
• Most important source of funding: NGO (41%); operation-
generated cash (28%); membership fees (12%);
government (8%)
• 78% respondents are in two or more organizations
• Overall no difference in terms of trust and capacity
development between NLA members and non-members
• Coops of 2nd and 1st levels influenced by the NLA agreed more
that they ‘gained applicable knowledge and skills from the NLA’
• Partners linked to FENACOOP gave lower marks to ‘NLA gives
reliable information’ and ‘increased trust in NLA products’
Areas for improvement by NLA
• Include more private and public sector partners
• Invest in the individuals managing the learning
Improvements to research method
• Add economic figures to strengthen data
• Try structural equation modelling to capture better
linkages between structure and conduct
Structure
• NLA
• Individuals
• Environment
Performance
• Value chain
development
• Capacity
Development
• …
Conduct
• Communication
• Trust
• …