Day 2, Session 1, Part 1: Unlocking Agricultural Growth through Technology and Financial Security

Understanding diversity in irrigation potential
within Nigeria

Hiroyuki Takeshima, Hua Xia, Liang You, Hyacinth Edeh (IFPRI)

NSSP National Conference 2012:
―Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda with Policy
Analysis and Research Evidence‖

Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012

Research questions and methodologies
Research questions
• How much irrigation potentials are there in
Nigeria?
• How does such potential vary across regions?
• Which type of irrigation system is transforming
farm households in Nigeria?

Methodologies
• Irrigation potential – spatial diversity
• Farm household and irrigator typologies
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Irrigation in Nigeria – current picture

Total cultivated area
Irrigated
million 32.1
ha Not irrigated
0.9

Public (equipped)
0.2

0.67 Private (equipped)
million ha
0.03 Unequipped
Fadama

Source: FAO (2012)
0.9

IRRIGATION POTENTIALS


Irrigation potentials
• How accurate can they be? – What might affect the exact potentials
in different locations?
• Location
• Common resources / externality – water use within each basin
• Imperfect market integration
• Maximum potential from 4 types of technologies
• diesel pumps
• treadle pumps
• communal river diversion
• small reservoirs


Analytical framework

A: Ex-ante Spatial Analysis
Spatial disaggregation of
agricultural development
domains and spillover
potential

B: Biophysical Modeling (SWAT) C: Economic Modeling (DREAM)

Hydrology Plant growth Predict the crop price effect
from smallholder irrigations

D: Benefit-cost Analysis
Crop mix optimization, return to irrigation
investment, and environmental impacts (e.g. water
use increase).
Source: Xie et al. (2012)

Key spatial unit of analyses:
Market shed and Hydrological Basin

Market shed River Basin

Source: Authors (Hua Xie & Liang You)


Dry season irrigation potential

Total irrigation potential area
= 3.165 million ha

Average potential = 1,000 USD / ha

Net revenue Area (1000 Cumulative
(USD/ha, year) ha) share (%)
<500 57 2
500-1000 2,081 68
1000-2000 793 93
USD / ha 2000-3000 99 96
High : 8800
3000-4000 76 98
Low : 0
4000-5000 34 99
>5000 25 100
Source: Simulation by Hua & Liang Total 3,165


FARM LEVEL TYPOLOGY
ANALYSIS


Research question
Research question
• Does irrigation transform farm households?
• Which irrigation types are more likely to have
transformed farm households?

Objective
• Construct key hypotheses

Farm level analyses – typology
• Farm household level diversity
• Key farm household characteristics needed for using
irrigation – despite some potential, why only certain types
of farm households use irrigation?
• Key farm behavioral characteristics

Methodology -
• Cluster analysis
• Living Standard Measurement Survey –
Integrated Survey on Agriculture, 2010 (World
Bank, National Bureau of Statistics in Nigeria)
• Approximately 2000 farm households after
dropping outliers (1100 for the North, 900 for the
South)


Producer typology
Types of variables used

Behaviors Resources
-Crop patterns -- Rainfall variation
-Input use intensity (fertilizer, agro- -- Soil types
chemicals, seed purchase) -- Farming systems (North / South)
-Production scale (farm size, sales) -- Proximity to rivers / dams
-Irrigation -- Population density / access to town
-Mechanization (tractor / animal -- Household characteristics
traction) -- Assets
- Market orientation -- Non-farm income earning activities
-- Labor cost (real wage)

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 12

Variables used for cluster analysis
Categories Variables
Agro-ecological Agroecological zones – FAO farming system (LGA average)
(Natural resources) Soil type (LGA average)
Historical rainfall variation (LGA average)
Distance to major rivers (LGA average)
Market access Total population density in the region where the household is located
Distance to towns of 20 thousand inhabitants
Resources (Human Household size
resources) Level of education and literacy of household head
Gender of household head
Resources (Assets) Total value of assets not including land
Size of livestock equivalent stock or value of animal stock owned
Labor resource Real LGA median wage of land clearing / preparation (– ratio to LGA
maize price)
Land tenure Whether own any of the farm plots
Production scale Total rainfed area
Production scale Whether using irrigation or not
under irrigation Total irrigated area

(continue to next slides)

Variables used for cluster analysis
Categories Variables
Production intensity Overall input intensity measured as the total value of inputs per
hectare of farm area or cultivated area
Fertilizer
- Seed (value of purchased seed only), pesticide, herbicide
Animal traction (Number of days per ha)
Whether using tractor or not
Tractor (Number of tractors used per ha)
Whether hired labor for harvesting
Whether the household took out any loan / credit (including non-
agricultural credit) from either formal or informal sources
Income, non-farm Total expenditure per person
activities Whether having non-farm income
Remittance income last month – other types of income (savings
interest, rental of property etc)


Separate by North and South

Pastoral

Agro-pastoral –
millet / sorghum

Cereal – root crop
mixed

North
Root crop system

Tree crop South
system
Coastal artisanal

Figure 1. Farming systems in Nigeria
Source: Dixon et al. (2001)

Agro-ecological / Socio-economic factors

!
!
! ! !!
! ! !!
!! !!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!! ! ! !! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
! !
! ! !! !! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!

Major waterways / dams in Time of travel to nearest
Nigeria town with population of 20k


Types of farm households using irrigation in
Nigeria - North
Category Maize based system with Coarse grains / Rice /
sorghum, legumes legume vegetable
% share among northern farmers 15 4 14 35 30 3
Real wage (daily wage/maize 11 24 11 8 10 8
price)
Fertilizer (Naira/ha) 4500 0 8400 4000 0 8200
Chemicals (USD/ha) 2200 3350 3900 1800 430 8600
Farm size 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.4
% using tractor 5 10 15 4 3 20
% using irrigation 10 0 1 4 4 63
% with non-farm income source 51 26 67 69 47 73
Household nonfood expenditure 36 34 57 38 30 43
(annual/pc)
Household assets (USD) 198 204 510 295 149 271
Distance to the nearest river .017 .017 .017 .017 .017 .017
Distance to the nearest dam (km) 58 48 40 43 82 80
% selling their harvest 62 76 65 60 57 73
% selling or giving as gift 89 88 84 85 80 93
Source: Author’s calculations based on LSMS-ISA.


Nigeria - South
Category Cassava Cassava, yam, grains Cocoa Rice
system
% share among northern farmers 30 41 9 9 8 4
Real wage (daily wage/maize 10 10 10 11 11 17
price)
Fertilizer (Naira/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 9000
Chemicals (USD/ha) 0 300 1420 2800 5000 15000
Farm size 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 2.6
% using tractor 0 0 0 0 1 100
% using irrigation 0 1 0 3 9 29
% with non-farm income source 32 54 65 29 82 80
Household nonfood expenditure 49 78 109 41 108 111
(annual/pc)
Household assets (USD) 88 308 310 249 253 671
Distance to the nearest river .017 .016 .017 .016 .017 .017
Distance to the nearest dam (km) 140 130 180 64 38 43
% selling their harvest 70 68 72 87 97 90
% selling or giving as gift 74 74 81 91 97 93
Source: Author’s calculations based on LSMS-ISA.


Major types of irrigators in Nigeria

Rice irrigators Vegetable Coarse grains /
irrigators legumes
irrigators
Small-scale Tractorized larger Dry season Rainy season
scale Supplementary

• Coarse grains / legumes irrigation – mostly supplementary, little
change in inputs intensity


Nigeria
• Descriptions of key farm households using irrigation
• North
• Small-scale rice / vegetable growers
• Rainy season supplementary irrigation of coarse grains / legumes
• Some substitutions of tractors vs (irrigation + animal traction)
• South
• Larger scale rice irrigators producing rainfed maize and cassava
• Their production behaviors are distinctive, but unclear whether it is
because of irrigation. More likely due to mechanization
• Effects of irrigation – some but may not be substantial


Concluding hypotheses
• Irrigation potentials vary across locations. Support for
irrigation needs to focus on areas with high potentials,
instead of medium to low potentials.

• Irrigation for rice / vegetables can be one of the options
to transform farm households in Nigeria

• Irrigation of coarse grains / legumes
• mostly supplementary
• Limited effect in changing inputs intensity, transforming
farm households

• Does irrigation really transform agriculture ? How ?

UDP Technology in Nigeria

Prof. B. Tarfa & Brian Kiger

“Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation
Agenda with policy analysis and research evidence”



UDP Technology… Agenda

 What is UDP technology?
 What are USG?
 Benefits
 Challenges
 Building Demand
 Enabling Supply
 Moving Forward

What is UDP technology?

Urea Deep Placement (UDP) is the practice
of placing briquetted urea 5-7cm deep in
puddled transplanted rice fields, at spacing
of 40 cms.
40 cm

What are USGs?
 Urea Super Granules (USGs) are applied
once a growing season— a week after
transplanting rice seedlings.
 One USG is applied geometrically between 4
rice stands.
 They are oval compacted pellets produced by
briquetting granular urea using briquetting
machines to 1.8 gram or 2.7 grams.
 Notore Chemical industries is currently
producing and marketing 2.7g in 10 kg bags.
 USG releases N slowly and is placed out of
the reach of weeds’ roots.

The briquette product

Urea Briquettes NPK Briquettes
Urea + Diammonium phosphate +
Muriate of Potash

How do farmers apply UDP technology?

Comparison of N Balance in Rice Fields

Urea Split Application Urea Deep Placement
Unaccounted
4%

In Grain In Soil
23% 31% In Grain
42%
Unaccounted
35% In Straw
9%

In Soil
33%
In Straw
23%

Comparison of Urea Applications

2 Out of 3 Bags of Urea Lost using Split Application

1 Out of 3 Bags of Urea Lost using USG

What are the benefits of UDP
technology?
 Increases efficiency of N use in rice by placing it in
the soil—reducing N loss through gaseous
emissions and/or floodwater run-off. In broadcast
application of urea, 40% of N fertilizers volatizes
into the atmosphere.

 Reduces weed competition as fertilizer is placed
near rice plants’ roots.

 Nitrogen use efficiency under irrigated rice
increases by 40%.

 Irrigated rice crop yields increase up to 50% (Niger
State 2012).

UDP Benefits Rice Sector Stakeholders

For farmers: For the environment:
• Decrease in production cost • Reduces Nitrogen
• Increase in yield runoff and volatization
• Increase in profit
For entrepreneurs:
• New area of business & profit
• Opportunity to contribute to national development

For the national economy:
• Increase in rural employment opportunities
• Increase in rice production

What are the challenges of UDP
technology adoption in Nigeria?

 Limited Supply and Demand of USG
 UDP Best Practices are not well-known to
rice farmers
 Many farmers complain that USG
application is labor-intensive
 Farmers incorrectly apply USGs to other
crops and/or do not practice rice
cultivation and field management best
practices, limiting USG’s yield effect.

In 2012…

The FMARD (via NPFS), Notore and MARKETS
II began collaborating on expanding the Supply
and Demand of Urea Super Granules in
targeted Nigerian rice producing regions.

Building Demand:
2012 UDP Technology Transfer Centers (TTCs)

Kebbi 2012

Kebbi 2012

2012 Dry Season Yields
with Transplanted Rice

UDP (Mt/Ha)* Farmers' Practice (Mt/Ha)*
Difference (Mt/Ha)
7.74
8.00
7.07
6.79 6.68
7.00
5.71
6.00
Yields (Mt/Ha)

5.00 4.18 4.38

4.00 3.263.42
2.61 2.69
3.00
2.03
2.00

1.00

-
Gombe Kebbi Niger Average

Cost-Benefit Analysis from 2012 UDP
Demonstrations
Farmer's Practice UDP
447,051
450,000

400,000

350,000
311,813
299,150
300,000
267,847
250,000
Naira

200,000
147,900
150,000

100,000

50,000

-

(50,000) Production Costs Harvest Revenue Overall Profit
(43,966)

In 2012, MARKETS II facilitated…
• 3 Technology Transfer Centers (TTCs)
managed by rice farmers and state ADP
officers;
• Trained more than 2,000 farmers (including
Notore staff) on UDP technology best practices
in 2012;
• Developed training curriculums to improve
dissemination of USG benefits to farmers for
coming seasons;
• Partnered with Notore and the FMARD (via
NPFS) on supplying USG to pilot rice growing
markets.

Building Supply: Notore’s Commercial
Production of USG in 2012

Distribution (by state) of USG Sold in 2012

30

25
USG Sold (MT)

20

15

10

5

0

2012 Pilot States

In 2012, Notore…
 Developed a production line for briquetting
urea, packaging and shipping it to select
retailers;
 Developed supply channels of USG to
targeted rice grower regions in Nigeria;
 Sold 75 Mt of USG in 10kg bags (7,500 unit
sales);
 Developed agro dealer demonstration plots
after attending the MARKETS II trainings at
TTCs.

Moving Forward

 Work with old and new partners to expand
USG supply while continuing to develop and
expand market demand
 Explore USG application rates on other crops
(soya, maize, tomatoes, sorghum)
 Explore briquetting NPK options
 Develop a mechanized applicator to facilitate
labor of USG application

The role of information and
social networks in technology
adoption: A case study of Urea
Deep Placement technology

Oluyemisi Kuku (IFPRI), Saweda Liverpool-Tasie (MSU),
Akeem Ajibola (IFPRI)

“Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation
Agenda with policy analysis and research evidence”



Presentation Outline
 Introduction
 Factors that affect technology adoption
 Social Networks and social learning
 UDP
 Farmer field day visits
• Farmer’s perceptions
• Village promoters
 Lessons learned
 Future steps

Introduction
 The agricultural sector is crucial to the Nigerian
economy
• Largest employer
• Food self sufficiency
 Agricultural productivity is low – working in agricultural
sector is hard and unrewarding
• Agronomic factors (e.g seed quality)
• Farm management
 poor production technologies
 outdated farming methods

 Many technological innovations that can dramatically
increase productivity
• How to encourage adoption?

Adoption Decisions

 Most adoption studies in Nigeria use characteristics
of the farm as well as demographic characteristics
of farm households to predict adoption.
 Information as a factor growing in importance
• often proxied by some measure of farmer contact
with extension agents, or membership of farmer’s
organization of some sort
• farmers characterized as passive recipients of
information from change agents e.g extension
officers or sales agents representing producers
 These measures not robust enough to capture
important information about adoption decisions

Social Networks and social Learning
 Social networks: systemic setups
characterized by agents that develop, diffuse
and use innovations, their interactions, and
structures and rules
 Farmers can learn by doing or learn from
others (Bandiera and Rasul, 2006).
 In the “learning from others” model:
• learn through collective
experimentation, discussion and persuasion
• direct observation of neighbors’ experiments

Social Networks and social Learning
 While farmers learn from others, they do not
learn from all farmers.
 Networks which involve more purposeful
interactions (like friends) are more likely than
mere spatial links (like neighbors who may or
may not be friends) to appropriately
disseminate information
 Not much information on the process of social
learning in Nigeria :
• Relevant studies treat farmers as passive
recipients of information

Urea Deep Placement technology
 placement of 1-3 grams of urea supergranules or
briquettes at a 7-10 centimeters (cm) soil depth
shortly after the paddy is transplanted.
 Importance of irrigation

Urea Deep Placement technology
 Benefits
• Lower costs:
 Reduction in fertilizer costs per hectare
due to only one application of urea
 Reduction in weeding costs (weed only
once)
• Decrease in Nitrogen losses (40%)
• Increase in yield (25-30 %)

Exploratory field work

 Farmer field days in Gombe and
Niger
 Notore, USAID markets, IFDC
 Qualitative interviews with
• About 10 farmers in Niger and Gombe
• The main agrodealer in Niger
• Several Notore officials
• Relevant ADP extension agents

Exploratory field work

Farmer’s practice UDP technology

Benefits identified by farmers

 Better yield
 Faster growth
 Less fertilizer use – for one farmer it
was 6kg of USG as opposed to 20kg
of normal fertilizer that he used
previously.
 Lower overall labor costs – apply
fertilizer only once.

Benefits identified by farmers
 Hands on learning: Many of the farmers were
also able to tell us clearly the steps required
to utilize UDP, even those who were not
demonstration farmers.
 New associated technologies and methods:
the farmers learned about transplanting and
dry season irrigation, and also appeared to be
very excited about this information

Social networks and social learning:
The Village promoter
 A unique blend of social networks and commercial
motivation to propagate a new technology.
 In Niger:
• a model farmer, open to innovative practices, very
popular, very well respected and well liked.
• Called a village meeting to propagate the technology.
Everybody we interviewed pointed to him as the source of
their knowledge.
• He has credibility because he also uses the technology on his
crops in addition to selling
• We are liaising with him as we plan a return trip
 In Gombe – perhaps not as effective. Farmers did not
know that USG was available locally even though they
expressed a wish to purchase.

The village promoter (Niger State)

Fari Muhammed Shesi

Lessons learned
 Demonstration plots: An excellent tool being used
by IFDC, and USAID markets. The farmers were
very excited by the results of the use of UDP
even on the look of the plants. They were very
excited and enthused about what they saw and
vowed to adopt for the rainy season.
 Hands on learning: Many of the farmers were
also able to tell us clearly the steps required to
utilize UDP, even those who were not
demonstration farmers.
 New associated technologies and methods: the
farmers learned about transplanting and dry
season irrigation, and also appeared to be very
excited about this information.

Lessons learned

 Information: Some village promoters are more
effective and credible than others
 Financing: Village promoter has reported low
adoption rates despite farmer enthusiasm
• probably 10-15 percent of rice farmers in the
village purchased the UDP in any appreciable
quantities
• Finances often mentioned as reasons for not
adopting.
• On return trip, these group of farmers would be
interviewed to find out:
 If these farmers bought any fertilizer at all, and just
decided not to buy USG in addition (taking a risk
averse OR
 If they truly lacked the finances to buy any fertilizer at
all.

Future Steps
 Exploratory visit to back to Niger state in
December. Interest in:
• Rate of adoption
• Yields
• Sources of and flow of UDP related
information
 Identifying if the flow of information and
recognition of expertise has transcended
the village promoter
 Larger evaluation of the technology in 2013
in collaboration with MSU and IFDC

Policy Options for Promoting Agricultural Credit in
Nigeria: Insights from Recent Innovations in
Developing Countries
Kamiljon T. Akramov
International Food Policy Research Institute
Washington, D.C., USA

IFPRI-NSSP 2012 Research Conference
Abuja, Nigeria
November 13-14, 2012

Outline

• Background

• The financing gap in agricultural sector in Nigeria

• Recent advances in agricultural finance
• Credit delivery structures
• Risk mitigating instruments
• Value chain financing

• Summary and conclusions


Background
• Agriculture plays a pivotal role in developing economies, driving
equitable development and poverty reduction
• Access to credit is one of the important challenges in agricultural
sector
• High real and perceived risk
• High transaction and loan supervision costs
• Governments and development partners have tried various approaches
to improve farmers’ access to credit
• Access to agricultural credit remains as a major problem in developing world
• This presentation draws insights from recent advances in
agricultural credit in developing countries to inform policy options
in Nigeria


Financial intermediation in Nigeria improved in recent years

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

M2/GDP (%) (CPS/GDP) (%)

Source: Central Bank of Nigeria (2012)


But only small share of loans reaches agriculture
despite its substantial share in overall economy
60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

AGGDP/GDP AGC/CPS

Source: Central Bank of Nigeria (2012)


How to improve farmers’ access to credit?

• In the past, governments heavily invested but often
unsuccessfully in agricultural development banks and
various subsidy schemes
• The Nigerian government has also launched a number of
interventions to promote agricultural producers’ access to credit
• ACGSF, ACSS, CACS, BOA
• NIRSAL
• In recent years a number of innovative approaches are being
practiced to address constraints in agricultural credit
• Advances in credit delivery structures (CDS)
• Novel risk mitigating instruments (RMI)
• Inventions in value chain financing (VCF)


CDS: Foreign investment and institutional strengthening of
rural banks
• Rabobank created two institutions to advance rural banking and access to
credit in rural areas of developing countries (van Empel 2010)
• Rabo Development (RD) invests in financial institutions and provides
management services
• Rabo International Advisory Services (RIAS) provides technical assistance to
banks and financial cooperatives
• Provision of credit to farmers is focused on the value chains
• Investments in Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Rwanda, Paraguay, Brazil
• Institutional strengthening of rural and community banks (RCB) in Ghana
• Establishment of Apex Bank to provide payment clearing and liquidity
management services to RCBs
• Strengthening institutional capacity and policy framework to effectively oversight
of rural financial services
• Building ICT infrastructure including local area networks and satellite-based wide
area networks
• Mixed financial performance but credit to agriculture yet to increase


CDS: Linkage banking

• Agricultural development bank or commercial bank – MFI
partnership arrangements (Harper et al. 2008; Hannover
2005)
• Banks do on-lending to MFIs or pay service fee or share part of
interest earning
• Allows to reduce transaction costs for banks and provides access
to wholesale funds for MFI
• Increases access to credit by poor smallholders
• Improves repayment of credit because MFIs know how to provide
and monitor financial services for poor rural households
• Examples: NABARD (India), AFC (Kenya), BOA (Nigeria)


Extending agricultural credit in combination with RMI

• Market-based arrangements can help to mitigate both price and
weather related risk and improve access to credit by poor farmers
• Futures and forward contracts
• Risk pooling and index-based weather insurance
• Extending agric. lending through insurance – BASIX in India (WB
2005, BASIX 2012)
• BASIX is a group of companies that aims to expand agricultural credit by
attracting funds from mainstream capital markets
• BASIX reduces its institutional-level risk through appropriate mix of three risk
mitigation techniques
• Group-specific lending to increase repayment
• Portfolio limits: 45% agricultural lending, 45% non-farm loans, 10% other
• Loans offered in conjunction with insurance products: group term life
insurance, cattle insurance, weather index insurance
• Performance in 2010: about 1 million loans for total amount of over 14bln Rs;
performing assets-99.2%, on-time repayment – 98% (BASIX 2012)


Partial credit guarantee schemes in agriculture

• Renewed interest in PCG schemes to increase investment
into agriculture (Meyer 2011)
• PCG schemes are also used in Nigeria
• PCGs can (FAO 2011)
• Provide additional collateral to farmers but cannot improve their capacity
to repay loans
• Leverage scarce public resources by ―unlocking‖ private capital but
cannot make up for lack of liquidity
• Recent WB study shows that (Beck et al. 2008):
• When governments are involved in credit risk assessment, default rates
are higher
• Role of governments in PCG schemes should be limited to funding and
management, and banks should be responsible for credit risk
assessment and recovery
• Limited use of risk management mechanisms by banks


VCF instruments: Warehouse receipts

• Warehouse receipts system (WRS) is an old form of collateralized
agricultural lending instrument
• But limited scale economies and lack of appropriate institutional
arrangements limit its use, especially for smallholders (Meyer 2011)
• WRS are more prevalent in east and southern Africa than in west or central
• Recently MFIs start to develop so-called micro-warrant financing systems
• FONDECO (Bolivia) uses micro-warrant financing for rice and corn small
producers
• Smallholders have access to lower-cost seasonal loans, backed by stored
grain while FONDECO benefits from less risk and reduced loan management
costs
• Grain mills benefits from higher demand for their facilities (Miller 2011)
• Similar efforts are under way in Uganda and other countries (Meyer 2011)
• But these schemes seem costly for smallholders without external financial
and managerial support (Besigye 2009)


VCF Instruments: Providing market linkages
• Provision of credit to smallholder farmers becomes increasingly
feasible when they are connected to a formal network of supply chain
participants (Campaigne and Rausch 2010)
• DrumNet project in Kenya is operating since 2005 by combing supply-
chain approach with microfinance principals
• It establishes relationships with key actors along a supply chain- a
buyer, farm input dealers, a financier and links them to smallholders
through a dedicated transaction platform
• DrumNet serves as the intermediary in the flow of payments to ensure
credit is repaid before earnings reach farmers’ accounts
• This infrastructure enables access to credit for smallholders by
• Assuring banks that farmers have a market for their produce and the
means to adequately serve that market
• Minimizing loan diversion by directly paying certified input retailers after
distribution of inputs


VCF: Providing market linkages (cont.)
• DrumNet encountered two major challenges
• Partner noncompliance
• Low agricultural yields
• To address these challenges, DrumNet identified new
products that can be bundled with supply chain
• Performance rating
• Crop insurance
• Soil analysis
• Payment systems similar to M-Pesa


Agricultural credit constraints addressed by innovative
approaches: Summary
Mitigating risks Reduction of transaction
& loan supervision costs
Credit delivery structures
• Attracting foreign investment + +
• Strengthening rural banks +
• Linkage banking +
Risk reducing instruments
• Combining credit with +
insurance
• PCG +
Value chain financing
• WRS + +
• Providing market linkages + +


Overall policy lessons
• Review of recent advances in agricultural credit suggests that
promoting innovations in agricultural credit rests on
• Creating supportive legal and institutional framework for provision of a
variety of financial services to low-income rural households
• Strengthening institutional capacity and ICT infrastructure of rural
financial institutions
• Providing appropriate training in both technical and management skills
• Investing in economic and technological infrastructure in rural areas
necessary
• Interventions are more successful when they are implemented as a
package
• Government can play an important role in providing wholesale
funding to credit constrained microfinance and rural banks
• Monitoring and evaluation of new interventions in agricultural finance
is very important


Thank you


Day 2, Session 1, Part 1: Unlocking Agricultural Growth through Technology and Financial Security

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (12)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Day 2, Session 1, Part 1: Unlocking Agricultural Growth through Technology and Financial Security

Ähnlich wie Day 2, Session 1, Part 1: Unlocking Agricultural Growth through Technology and Financial Security (20)

Mehr von IFPRI-NSSP

Mehr von IFPRI-NSSP (17)

Day 2, Session 1, Part 1: Unlocking Agricultural Growth through Technology and Financial Security

Hinweis der Redaktion