This document summarizes a study on the impact of multi-stakeholder platforms on farmer entrepreneurs in Uganda, using Agri-ProFocus as a case study. The study examined how Agri-ProFocus's network structure and regional marketplace events influence participating farmers and organizations. Results found that participating farmers had greater awareness of banks and loans than non-participating farmers, but fear remained a barrier. The study proposes ways for Agri-ProFocus to enhance impact, such as improving knowledge transfer and assisting farmers with documentation.

1. Unraveling multi-stakeholder platforms and their impact on farmer
entrepreneurs in Africa – Case studies from Uganda
Noor Ali | Domenico Dentoni | Jos Bijman | Wageningen University

2. 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’

3. Research objectives
Multi-stakeholder
platforms
Farm
entrepreneurship
1
2
 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.
Further research
Implications on how platform may need to be reorganised (if needed) to
enhance impact

4. 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)
Participants (12) -Local NGOs (04)
-International NGOs
(03)
-Banks (03)
-MFIs/SACCOs (02)
-Government (01)
-University (01)
Non-Participants
(14)
Control (06)
- 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

5. Results | What makes Agri-ProFocus different?
 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

6. Results | Perspective of & impact on stakeholder organisations
 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

7. 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

8. Results | Perspective of & impact on stakeholder organisations
 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)

9. 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?
Smaller In distant/rural
areas
FOs and Farmers:
- Mistrust, fear, misperceptions
- Lack of awareness of bank
requirements
- Lack of formal structures
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

10. Results | Impact of marketplace events on farm entrepreneurs
APF’s planned impact pathway – Farmer organisations
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)
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

11. Results | Differences between Participants and 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’
8
Strict/complicated requirements
Fear of punishment
Reluctance of banks
Lack of awareness about loan procedures
High interest rates
4
2
5 5
3 3
1 1
3
8
3 3
1
0
Participant Non-Participant Control
Key message: Participants more
aware of requirements than Non-
Participants

12. 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 level
6/12 – secondary
3/12- post secondary
4/14 – secondary
4/14 – 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
24 10
(total per category)
Association with NGOs,
groups (total per category)
14 04
Awareness of banks,
financial terms
18 11

13. Conclusion | Key opportunities for further research
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

14. Conclusion | Some steps APF may consider if propositions hold valid
P1: Increased transfer of knowledge from Ps to NPs
 Distribute logistical costs among member organisations
 Accountability and incentivisation of knowledge transfer among farmer
P2: Increased participation of women
 Pre-selection and preparation of women farmers by local member
organisations
P3: Decreased fear among farmers
 Ensure transfer of only complete and accurate information to farmers
 Encourage banks/MFIs to use online platforms for promotion of products

15. Conclusion | Some steps APF may consider if propositions hold valid
P4: Adoption of pro-smallholder approach by
banks/MFIs
 Train FOs and farmers via local NGOs on topics such as book keeping and
registrations
 Encourage NGO-banks collaboration for translation of application documents
P5:More autonomy to local committees
 Develop standardised procedures to delegate responsibilities while keeping
checks for quality (e.g. Procedure for evaluation of vendors/suppliers)

16. Thank you –
Question & Comments?