Page 235 - The Digital Financial Services (DFS) Ecosystem
P. 235

ITU-T Focus Group Digital Financial Services
                                                         Ecosystem



               3      Are payment-enabled agricultural value chains a solution for digital
                      liquidity?

               Appealing characteristics

               eMoney is a good fit for tight value chains.

               •    Bulk payments: A single entity typically pays the SHF. This entity may be a farmers’ group distributing
                    payments from a larger buyer or a large buyer that contracted directly with SHFs. eMoney provides an
                    audit trail and reduces cash handling costs. Cash handling costs include theft /shrinkage, lost advances
                    due to lack of proper record keeping, bank withdrawal fees, insurance, employee fuel and time costs
                    for making bank withdrawals and delivering payments, security guards, shortages of appropriate cash
                    denominations to make exact payments, and soft costs such as fear of robbery and physical harm from
                    robbery.

               •    Payment flow complexity: Value chains do not always follow a simple cash transaction process at each
                    step – i.e., input suppliers sell to farmers, followed by farmers selling to traders, etc. Payments can
                    leapfrog or be split between value chain participants. For example, a contract may require a farmer group
                    to divide sales proceeds between lenders, input suppliers, and farmers. eMoney with an accompanying
                    management system can automate this process and provide an audit trail.
               •    Importance of credit: There are significant cash flow constraints up and down agricultural value chains.
                    For example, dairy farmers need inputs to better feed their cows, but the input providers don’t necessarily
                    get paid right away. Dairy farmers will sell their milk to collectors and co-ops that will in turn onsell their
                    milk to coolers that will in turn onsell the milk to processors that will in turn sell products to distributors.
                    Every step of this process results in delays in payments after goods are already delivered. Smoothing out
                    uneven payments through credit can have a substantial impact. eMoney can help in various ways. For
                    example, transaction histories facilitate credit decisions. An eMoney platform can also ensure that money
                    lent is actually spent on a borrower’s intended use (e.g., farming inputs). Additionally, repayments can
                    be enforced by automatically deducting payments, or even cutting off access to the market in the event
                    of non-payment.
               Not a silver bullet

               eMoney is clearly valuable, but will it improve digital liquidity? For meaningful improvement to occur, eMoney
               within value chains would need to reach critical mass and continue circulating in digital form. Otherwise, digital
               liquidity would be small and temporary. For a number of years into the future, critical mass and electronic
               circulation seem unlikely.

               Several issues attenuate the potential:

               #1 – Low participation in tight value chains

               Only seven per cent of SHFs participate in tight value chains – thus, the reach is limited.  While there are efforts
                                                                                      4
               to increase participation in these value chains, progress will take time. It is noteworthy that 60 per cent of SHFs
               are non-commercial (i.e., grow food for subsistence), so there is limited cash flow to digitize.















               4   Christen, Robert Peck, and Jamie Anderson. Segmentation of Smallholder Households: Meeting the Range of Financial Needs in
                  Agricultural Families. Focus Note 85. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, April, 2013.



                                                                                                       207
   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240