Although partnerships and group work are emphasised, the majority of field days and agricultural shows incentivise individual effort as opposed to collective group effort
Charles Dhewa
There is no longer any doubt that agricultural challenges are extending their influence to health, nutrition, environment and GDP.To the extent that agriculture crosses many socio-economic and environmental boundaries, there is a strong emerging consensus that addressing agriculture-related issues is beyond the capabilities of individual sectors, communities or industries. That explains why phrases like Public Private Partnership and collaboration have found their way into economic development conversations.
Zimbabwean agriculture has diverse partnerships ranging from a minimum of three farmers pooling their resources together so that they buy inputs to dozens of medium and large companies working together along agricultural value chains. However, while partnering and collaborating makes a lot of sense, current efforts at promoting partnership and collaboration in the agriculture sector are not backed by empirical evidence demonstrating the history and performance of these collaborative arrangements.
Across Africa and much of the developing world, development interventions have for a long time emphasised the need for farmers or “beneficiaries” to work in groups. However, this emphasis has also not been supported by empirical evidence, comparing outcomes from individual efforts and group efforts.
It seems individuals continue to dominate groups
Although partnerships and group work are emphasised, the majority of field days and agricultural shows incentivise individual effort as opposed to collective group effort. Where groups of farmers have scored some measure of success, the quality of the group has depended on the quality of individuals in the group. In agriculture markets, market dynamics depend on individual traders’ capacity to seek, sense and share knowledge. It seems the ability to master knowledge at a personal level carries the day.
Every farmer or trader has his/her own style of learning. That makes learning more powerful because it is demand-driven than training which is more about pushing ideas and information to people without a sense of their capacity to make sense of it. As learning institutions, farming communities and agricultural markets motivate individual value chain actors to learn for themselves according to their pace, energy and emotional depth.
There is more to collaborations and partnerships than meets the eye
Out-grower schemes and contract farming arrangements that bring together contracting companies, financial institutions and farmers have been touted as the best partnership models in Zimbabwe. However, there is enormous evidence of discontent and dissatisfaction among actors. Farmers complain about low prices while contracting companies complain about side-marketing by farmers.
Of late, partnership models that bring together government, local communities, NGOs, investors and private companies are being proposed and piloted. On the other hand, the heaven and hell of such complicated joint ventures are yet to be understood given the short history of such relationships in the agriculture sector. Having participated in one such arrangement and got out, eMKambo has gleaned some lessons from partnerships involving multiple actors.
Evidence from eMKambo’s work with farmers and traders shows that while promoting farmer groups makes a lot of sense from a business and resource-sharing point of view, it is not efficient in practice. By bringing women in a group, what happens to their husbands whose decisions can influence the group from outside?
To what extent to development interventions consider socio-political issues before asking people to from groups? Perhaps it also has something to do with capacity and lack of information. Most individuals have different capacities and resources which means putting them in a group can be constraining.
The question can be extended to corporate levels where mergers make a lot of business sense theoretically and analytically but practice can be a nightmare. Otherwise, Zimbabwe’s 21 banks could have easily merged into six or seven banks to maximise resources and efficiencies. Most NGOs which promote group formations defy groups at their own organisational level so much that you see NGOs doing the same thing competing rather than grouping to solve issues.
One of the non-negotiable unwritten rules of partnerships is that potential partners should identify clear reasons for partnering. In most cases, balancing the objectives of government, NGOs and the private sector is a big headache from a practical point of view. While private sector partners are interested in profit, government and development partners may be interested in treating information and knowledge as a public good.
One or two partners may partner for good publicity or not wanting to be left out. Such reasons for partnering are not strong enough to build a sustainable relationship. If partners fail to pin down meaningful motivations such as ensuring long-term agricultural profitability or uninterrupted availability of pastures and water for livestock, the partnership will not go very far.
Although value chain actors should not collaborate or partner just for Public Relations reasons, publicity and progress can go hand in hand. There are many cases where positive attention has brought more support, credibility and positive momentum. An immediate example is the traditional and organic food fair that has become a big annual event, thanks to the efforts of dozens of organisations and individuals that have come together to promote healthy eating in Zimbabwe.
Climate change is also forcing different value actors to partner. For instance, drought-induced commodity shortages have seen food processors collaborating with informal market players in order to guarantee supply of raw materials.
The power of investing more
than your share of the reward
Sustainability of a partnership may depend on a few partners taking the bull buy the horns and investing more than everyone. However, eMKambo has observed that coordinated action is often difficult because first movers take the biggest risks while later entrants can benefit without much investment at all. These are some of the issues that have handicapped group collateral models. Group collateral and repayments tend to constrain one business that wants to run with the stick. There is often reluctance among some group members to take group burdens with some people aware that there is a champion in their group, pushing risk to the champions knowing that even if one does not pay the group will do something about it for the sake of the group’s image.
If samples are drawn from a producer group that is doing well, even members who did not do well will benefit. On the other hand, samples that are drawn from a low performing group can damage the whole consignment. That is probably why farmers often want to market their own commodities at individual level. If you have an immediate problem that needs solving but a group has an order to be fulfilled with two week you have to wait for the whole group. In most cases, this is not feasible.
The importance of
brokering partnerships
When individual farmers and organisations come together, they often bring their own biases, cultures and expectations which can get in the way of sustainable partnering. The conflict can be more pronounced when the farmers or organisations are competing. One organisation that has spent money conducting research may not want to share its research findings with a competing organisation that may not have invested anything in research but expects to benefit from what has been discovered.
This is where a partnership broker becomes very important in structuring win-win relationships. Ultimately, trust and confidence will germinate resulting in former cut-throat competitors working together harmoniously for the good of the entire industry.
One of the expectations of those promoting Public Private Partnerships in Zimbabwe is that such partnerships will not only serve resources but create a business-friendly culture. The easy of doing business in Zimbabwe should be seen improving. However, a lot is still to be done in order to fully understand the pros and cons of different forms of partnerships.
Charles Dhewa is a proactive knowledge management specialist and chief executive officer of Knowledge Transfer Africa (Pvt) (www.knowledgetransafrica.com) whose flagship eMKambo (www.emkambo.co.zw) has a presence in more than 20 agricultural markets in Zimbabwe. He can be contacted on: [email protected] ; Mobile: +263 774 430 309 / 772 137 717/ 712 737 430.