By Florence Nakazi and Miriam Katunze

Farmer Groups (FGs) constitute a crucial component of a properly functioning agricultural system. They not only offer an opportunity to market agricultural produce, but also offer avenues for farmers to gain skills such as financial acumen, entrepreneurship, decision- making and negotiating. At the same time, FGs enable members to access inputs and remain competitive in dynamic markets.

Uganda has experienced an expansion in the number of available FGs as a result of the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADs) intervention in 2001 and the proliferation of Non-Governmental Organisation (NGOs). According to the Agricultural Technology and Agribusiness Advisory Services (ATAAS) database by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), the proportion of households with at least one member subscribing to FGs increased from 20 percent in 2011 to 23 percent in 2014.

The NAADS programme targeted both men and women to reduce the gender imbalance in access and use of agricultural information. As such, there was an increase in the number of FGs comprising of both men and women. By 2014, women and men’s representation in farmer groups stood at 35 percent.

The question at hand is whether the boom in FGs has enabled women to overcome their social and cultural barriers to taking up leadership positions in such groups. In this article, we examine barriers to female participation in leadership positions of FGs and their consequences to agricultural transformation.

Barriers to female participation in leadership of FGs
To the best of our knowledge, information on the status of female participation in leadership positions of FGs is largely absent. This means we are unable to undertake a trends analysis given that we lack a baseline. However there is evidence that suggests that overall few women are participating in leadership positions of FGs in most parts of Uganda.

A recent empirical study of 65 farmer groups in Central Uganda revealed that due to limited and non-standardization of the number of leadership positions in FGs as manifested by an average of 5 positions i.e. chairperson, vice chairperson, secretary, treasurer, auditors women do not participate much. This means that while FGs have constitutions/by-laws that govern them, they remain highly informal- lacking globally recognized positions/standard number of positions in a typical FG. The more positions- the better for women as they have more space to compete but this is not always the case.

Furthermore, the study found that with the exception of the vice chairperson and treasurer positions, females were under represented in almost all the other leadership positions. This suggests women’s limited access to informal political space For instance a lady chairperson led only 35 percent of the groups. Women’s limited participation in key decision making positions like chairperson shows that women bargaining space is still limited, which gives them less say in major decision making processes. Unfortunately, taking the status quo of 5 positions on average in an FG, how much bargaining power does a woman have in the decision making space?

On the other hand, 54 percent of FGs had women as vice chairpersons suggesting that women are shy to speak in public, always under the cover of men and yet this position is synonymous with one as a wife in a home and can therefore be leveraged on by women to make decisions. Furthermore, the over representation of women among the vice-chairperson position may suggest a token appreciation rather than a consideration of women as equal decision makers.

Nonetheless, it is however commendable that 70 percent of FGs had lady treasurers- suggesting that women contribute to financial stewardship of FGs. However, another recent study on Uganda warehouse receipt system also found that women leaders are risk averse when it comes to applying for loans.

As such, taking up some leadership position without taking advantage of the available financial services may not do justice to advancing the women’s cause in agricultural transformation. Nonetheless, increasing women in leadership position even if not as chairpersons can increase their voice and influence over group decision making which builds their confidence and skills. Furthermore, a recent the study showed that while women were traditionally less inclined to information dissemination, a large proportion of FGs have women as information This suggests that women are becoming more empowered in public speaking.

The above patterns in FGs leadership structures can partially be explained by cultural norms within the household and the community that men are perceived to be more knowledgeable and able to make decisions organize group activities and maintain discipline within the group. This could also be explained by the perception held by women suggesting men are better placed to establish contacts with external institutions to amplify their concerns/voices. Cultural norms that limit women’s movements outside the household/community perpetuate a male-dominated political scene.

More so, patriarchal socialization is equally responsible for such structure. FGs led by male chairperson are reluctant to place women on top of their lists, thus limiting women’s chances of getting elected. Yet male leaders can undercut such socialization by championing women in leadership. In addition, the triple role phenomenon is perhaps the biggest barrier to women’s participation in leadership of FGs. The cultural assumption that women are the primary or sole caregivers of children has often been used to exclude women from the public sphere, especially with regard to leadership in groups.

By increasing women’s participation in FGs, we can have a dramatic impact on the competitiveness and growth of the agricultural sector. There is need to establish quotas for participation of women in leadership structures of FGs. This may take the form of setting a minimum percentage of representation for both sexes to ensure a balanced presence of men and women in political and decision-making posts. Some posts should be ring fenced for women while others should be left for direct competition regardless of gender.

These will serve as a catalyst, which nurtures the self-confidence of women from the grassroots level to participation in politics. These quotas should be specified in the FGs constitutions, planning and monitoring systems. We also believe that utilizing the leadership potential of women in FGs can be an effective tool in addressing social norms and empowering rural women. While NAADs requires the provision of inputs through collective action, very little effort has been dedicated to mainstreaming governance structures of FGs. Essentially NAADs should collaborate with Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives to offer oversight roles in governing of FGs-making them formal. This should be undertaken, bearing in mind that promoting women in leadership provides benefits to FGs especially in financial performance.

The writers are research analysts

Stories Continues after ad

By Marty Zwilling
Angel investors and venture capitalists don’t make equity investments in nonprofit good causes. The simple reason is that it’s impossible to make money for investors when the goal of the company is to not make money. Yet as an active angel investor, I still get this question on a regular basis, so I’ll try to outline the considerations in common-sense terms.

A nonprofit organization is generally defined as an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals. Examples include charitable organizations, trade unions, and public arts organizations. In the US, a nonprofit is technically any company who qualifies as tax exempt through IRS Section 501(c).

Obviously, these companies still need money to get started, or finance growth, just like a for-profit company. What options do they have available to them, since they can’t sell a share of the company (no equity investment)?

Individual and institutional philanthropy. For a nonprofit, bootstrapping is self-funding from donations and fund-raising. The advantage is no time and effort is spent searching and preparing for the other alternatives, and no repayment terms or collateral are required. There is no discussion of equity, or return on investment.
Loans from a bank or other financial institution. Non-profits can apply for a bank loan or line-of-credit, just like any other individual or company. However, like anyone else, they will first need some collateral, or someone to guarantee the loan, and some evidence of a viable business, like receivables and inventory.
Personal loans from individuals, employees and board members. Personal loans are certainly an option, but should be avoided if possible. As in any company, they can lead to employee problems, or messy legal issues. A nonprofit can also issue bonds to board members and members as a way of borrowing funds from those same people.

Government grants. The grant source often gets overlooked, but it should be a major focus these days when relevant due to the Obama administration initiatives on alternative energy and healthcare. The down side here is that real work is required to put in a winning application, and the award may be a long time in coming.
Private endowments. This is a funding source for nonprofits that is made up of gifts and bequests subject to a requirement that the principal be maintained intact and invested to create a source of income for an organization. Endowments are usually limited to a specific area of interest by a philanthropist, and have many qualifications, so be careful.
Bartering services. Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example would be getting free office space by agreeing to be the property manager for the owner. This could work to get you legal or accounting services, but won’t get you cash to pay employee salaries.

Hopefully you can see from this list that the people and processes involved in financing a nonprofit have little in common with angel investors, or the venture capital process. You still start the process with a business plan, but then you look for a philanthropist rather than an investor.

Some nonprofit entrepreneurs think they can skip the whole plan, rather than just the sections on valuation, equity offered, and exit strategy. All other sections, starting with a definition of the problem and the solution, opportunity sizing, business model, competition, executive team, and financial projections, are just as critical for nonprofits as for-profits.

A nonprofit is still a business, maybe even tougher than for-profit to run successfully, so the best angel is a great entrepreneur at the helm for fund-raising, as well as operations. In addition, the best nonprofits turn out to be the angel, rather than require one. That’s a higher calling.

Marty Zwilling is CEO & Founder of Startup Professionals, Inc.

Stories Continues after ad