Impact measurement: a shared issue with producers or an imposed standard? 

The third round table of the FARM Foundation's international conference, held on January 28, 2025 at the Cité internationale universitaire de Paris, explored the central issue of inclusion.[1] agricultural producers in measuring the impact of investments. Moderated by François Doligez, agricultural economist and member of the Foundation's Scientific Council, representatives from the agricultural, financial, and research sectors shared their perspectives on the challenges, risks, and opportunities surrounding the development of impact measurement tools. A fundamental issue: how can we ensure that impact assessments meet the expectations of producers, in particular, and not just the demands of donors?

The discussions highlighted that impact measurement can be neither neutral nor universal: it only gains relevance when it becomes a shared tool for listening, learning, and improvement. Provided that all stakeholders are involved and the diversity of expectations is recognized, it can transform a formal obligation into a real lever for an agricultural and food transition that benefits everyone.

Small producer, largely forgotten by agricultural financing

Before even talking about taking producers into account in impact measurement, the issue of inclusion [2] Financial support, particularly for family farming, was immediately placed at the center of discussions. These forms of agriculture remain the foundation of global food systems and generate the majority of jobs, ensure the sustainable management of natural resources and feed the majority of the population. However, in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, fewer than 10% of small producers have access to bank credit. Financing is most often directed towards large companies or larger projects, leaving family farms on the margins of a major transformation. This structural financing deficit, already highlighted at previous editions of the FARM international conference, persists.

Financial inclusion, which aims to facilitate access to appropriate financial services for small producers, therefore remains a central issue. However, impact measurement is becoming a pillar of the mobilization, orientation and monitoring of agricultural financing, conditioning access to resources and the sustainable transformation of the sector, as we recalled in the second part of these syntheses. It influences the financing of agriculture via criteria for access to financing (conditionality based on results) or the improvement of financial products (microcredit, insurance, digital services, etc.). The choice of indicators used for granting financing is therefore key to promoting the financial inclusion of producers.

But for the agricultural and food transition to be effective, measuring the impact of investments must also take into account the realities on the ground and be accessible to all stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable.

Voices from the field: the cooperative and diversification as levers for adaptation

Assata Doumbia, president of the ECAM cooperative in Méagui (Ivory Coast), shared the experience of her organization, which has grown from 89 to 3,500 producers (including 546 women), and now manages more than 14,000 hectares of cocoa. The cooperative has organized itself to meet the challenges of productivity, climate change, the fight against crop diseases, and the management of price volatility. To achieve this, it has focused on certification (Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, organic), geolocation of plots, continuing education, and crop diversification (rubber, market gardening). However, producers must overcome numerous obstacles, such as poor access to credit, the difficulty of mobilizing ad hoc or effective financing, and the difficulty of adapting to the demands of markets and partners. Producers also suffer from the lack of recognition of the role of producer organizations by international donors.

The role of financial institutions

Mathieu Soglonou, director of the Confederation of Financial Institutions in West Africa (CIF-AO), recalled the vocation of financial mutualism in five West African countries (5.5 million clients, estimated impact on 30 million people). Financial cooperatives mobilize local savings and reinvest in small-scale agriculture, promoting local value creation, employment, and women's empowerment. The structure has developed an integrated approach, combining credit, financial education, technical support, and tripartite contractualization (producer, buyer, processor) to meet the needs of producers.

" We observed that with soil degradation in an insecure environment, we needed to review our approach to financing. We therefore introduced the digitalization of financial services into our strategy. We also introduced education on crop choice to be implemented by small producers. This is why, today, we no longer finance certain crops, but we have placed much more emphasis on crops that protect the environment, that bring greater added value to the local economy, to food security, carried out by young people and women in particular.. " said the speaker.

Concerned about social impacts, the CIF has equipped itself with tools: according to an independent survey conducted in 2024, 87 % of beneficiaries observed an improvement in their living conditions, 95 % saw their production increase, and 58 % of women invested more. However, Mathieu Soglonou recognizes that pressure on interest rates remains high and that co-construction with members is essential. For CIF-AO, impact measurement is not limited to financial indicators. It includes job creation, contribution to the local economy, and tax payments. The challenge is to demonstrate that investments truly benefit rural communities and support sustainable development.

Standards, tools, dialogue: what can impact measurement do?

Cécile Lapenu, director of Cerise, presented the work of Cherry-SPTF, an international coalition of inclusive finance stakeholders for 20 years. Their goal is to improve practices to protect small producers and borrowers by developing assessment and support tools adapted to the realities on the ground. Cerise-SPTF works in particular on the social and environmental performance of financial institutions.

Cerise-SPTF's approach aims to ensure the accountability of funders while facilitating access to financing for local partners. The organization emphasizes the need for relevant indicators, verifiable algorithms, and measurement tools that are accessible and easy to use for producers. Emphasis is placed on training, knowledge sharing, and local capacity building. The goal is for impact measurement to be more than just a communication exercise, but a real lever for improving practices.

Céline Lapenu also recalled the importance of Sustainable Development Goals which have served as a roadmap and common language for measuring impact and guiding action, particularly in responsible inclusive finance (RIF) and responsible agriculture/food (RAF). They help structure social and environmental strategies, measure progress, and support stakeholders in the face of challenges such as climate change. It emphasizes the importance of going beyond simple reporting regulatory (such as the regulation on the publication of sustainability information in the financial services sector – SFDR ). This involves using these frameworks to make decisions, manage social and environmental risks, and work in coalition with various stakeholders (producers, investors, NGOs, etc.). International standards (IFC, FAO, fair trade) serve as benchmarks for evaluating practices and strengthening accountability. For this purpose, specific tools have been developed, such as the agri CP tool for the protection of small producers, which makes it possible to evaluate and improve social and environmental practices in the agricultural sector, similar to financial statements for economic management.

Finally, Cécile Lapenu highlights the importance of working groups, audits, training and expert networks to test these tools in the field, support users to collectively improve practices, and guarantee fair contracts for producers.

Mamadou Goïta, director of the Institute for Research and Promotion of Alternatives in Development in Africa (IRPAD) and member of the IPES-Food panel poses, at the end of the discussion, a key question on the standards and objectives of impact measurement: how to ensure that the impact meets the real expectations of communities, and not just the requirements of donors? This means avoiding the imposition of standards from the North, giving local stakeholders a voice over the long term, and thinking about the valorization and appropriation of evaluation results.

Research, methods and “misunderstandings” about impact

Florent Bédécarrats, a researcher at the French Institute of Research for Development (IRD), put the divergence of frameworks into perspective: academic research focused on causality and methodological robustness, financial actors on sets of multiple indicators, and farmers' organizations on concrete, often qualitative, and long-term transformation. These "three worlds" do not always speak the same language: finance seeks "proven" impacts; producers want tools to "improve." There is therefore a need for shared frameworks, public data (quality agricultural statistics), and farmers' voices better represented in the definition and evaluation of impact.

In agriculture, and particularly in Africa, impact assessments are generally few in number and difficult to interpret. The lack of dialogue between research, financial actors, farmers' associations, and the state hinders the development of a common framework. While in other sectors, such as public health, more effective alignments between science, civil society, and economic actors exist, the state sometimes struggles to play this role of arbiter in agriculture. Florent Bédécarrats therefore calls for greater involvement of the latter to create concerted public policies and shared data, in order to harmonize approaches and improve the measurement of impact in agricultural financing.

Mamadou Goïta (IRPAD), also emphasizes the misunderstandings surrounding impact measurement, particularly the gap between scientific and local knowledge. He warns against the desire to justify everything scientifically, to the detriment of facts and knowledge from farmers' experience. This approach can bias the identification of impactful changes and waste time and resources. The researcher also emphasizes the need to recognize history and field dynamics and to take into account existing knowledge. Too often, each new participant acts as if nothing has been done before, ignoring history and social, economic and political dynamics from the environment. He criticizes the tendency to multiply pilot projects to test tools or funding, without taking into account the dynamics already in place. According to him, we must start from relevant experiences in the field and extend the transformations, rather than always wanting to “solve a problem” from scratch. Finally, Mamadou Goïta denounces the fact that many projects are built on unrealistic objectives, leading to a form of “collective lying” about the expected results. It calls for a change of approach, based on existing achievements and recognizing the limits of current financing instruments, which are often unsuitable (loans that are too short, high rates, insufficient amounts), particularly for women.

Proposals and ways forward

• Avoiding the pitfalls and the excesses of excessive financialization, where economic profitability takes precedence over social impact, in particular on the income and living conditions of producers, and over environmental impact.
• Moving beyond misunderstandings on indicators, favoring continuous progress approaches and support rather than compliance.
• To strenghten training, empowerment and access to information for producer organizations, by involving them from the design of evaluation systems.
• Involve the State as guarantor of a common reference framework and rely on concerted public policies and the production of reliable agricultural statistics.
• Promote creation multi-stakeholder spaces, shared tools and stakeholder coalitions, so that data, standards and decisions can be appropriated by producers and their organizations.
• Value the mechanisms for using impact results and feedback in communities.

The third round table of the international conference highlighted that measuring the impact of agricultural investments, far from being a simple technical exercise, constitutes a major political and social issue for the success of the agricultural transition in the countries of the South. This observation can also be extended to the countries of the North, as we recalled during a seminar in 2023 with the international “4 per 1000” Initiative.

Inclusiveness, simplicity, transparency and co-construction are the keys to transforming impact measurement into a real lever for sustainable development, serving producers and all rural areas.

[1] Inclusion refers to the action of actively integrating individuals or groups who were previously marginalized or excluded. It is therefore a process where measures are implemented to ensure that everyone has access to the same rights and resources and is recognized in society or in a given environment.

[2] Financial inclusion refers to the ability of all individuals and businesses – particularly poor, vulnerable or rural populations – to access a full range of financial products and services adapted to their needs, such as credit, savings, insurance or means of payment.