Combining savings and agriculture

Courtney Purvis is Economic Empowerment Senior Technical Advisor with World Relief, a Christian non-profit organisation that partners with local churches and communities to develop sustainable, locally driven solutions to some of the world’s most urgent problems.

In this interview, Courtney discusses some of the many benefits of bringing together savings groups and agriculture programmes in rural communities.

What are the programmes you are combining?

We are bringing together a programme called Agriculture for Life, and one called Savings for Life.

Agriculture for Life involves forming Farmer Field Schools, where 20 to 25 small-scale farmers learn experimental techniques and innovations in agriculture on a group demonstration farm. They also receive training in joint decision-making, nutrition, and water and sanitation practices. 

Savings for Life groups, consisting of 15 to 25 members, meet weekly to save money together and provide loans from communal savings, with an interest rate set by the group. After a period of 9 to 12 months, members share out all savings and interest earned.

Why combine the two?

In many places, savings group members are also farmers, making it practical to bring these two activities together. Farmers already working together in groups can easily form savings groups, making the most of their existing trust and collaboration. 

Savings groups improve financial security during difficult agricultural seasons by providing access to loans or allowing withdrawals from savings. They also offer a secure and profitable way to save agricultural income.

How do you know this is working?

In 2019, a research study conducted in partnership with the University of Michigan and Mennonite Economic Development Associates explored the impact of integrating World Relief’s agriculture and saving programmes in Musanze, Rwanda. 

The aim of the study was to find out whether participation in both programmes at the same time offered greater benefits than involvement in just one, or neither of the programmes. Our theory was that valuable knowledge of agricultural techniques and nutrition, combined with the financial resilience needed to try new farming practices, would benefit families.

The findings showed that participation in both programmes led to significantly greater improvements in agricultural innovation, economic well-being and household food security compared to either programme alone, or no participation at all. 

What about in places where there is a lack of stability?

Even in unstable contexts we have found that this approach helps to build community resilience and, where necessary, restore agricultural activities. And the sense of community created by these integrated programmes helps to build long-term stability.

For example, through a programme funded by the Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), World Relief Haiti supported 1,200 farmers to join savings groups.

Abdoul Nasser, BHA Programme Manager, once said, ‘Participating in both savings groups and agricultural programmes enables families to learn how to better manage and secure household resources through savings mechanisms, and to increase opportunities to invest in agriculture. It is a way of restoring dignity to people affected by crises.’ 

Any final words of encouragement?

Combining savings groups and agricultural programmes not only means community-led development activities have greater impact, but also helps communities become more resilient. Addressing both financial and agricultural needs together can lead to more substantial and long-lasting improvements in the lives of small-scale farmers.