...
What are the regulatory implications of this approach?
Would we consider giving access to the asset to a local service provider rather than an FPO? My sense is no if we are focused on strengthening the farmer groups
What if funding goes to individual members of a farmer org and they can choose how to invest (eg GiveDirectly model)? Not sure that fits with the approach outlined above but flagging as an alternative formulation
Need to develop some ground rules / guidance on how loan proceeds can be used across various buckets (see below) and % of total proceeds that need to be covered by FPO (eg, skin the game)
Durable assets, things that can be used over multiple years (eg, polyhouse, table and solar panel in community nursery)
Consumables, things needed regularly (eg, trays, cocopit, vermicompost)
Training
Maintenance
References
Rohtash Mal from EM3. Their model is to own the asset and rent it out on a pay per use basis, we are providing up-front financing with flexible repayment schedule with a goal of transferring asset to FPO but still seems like a useful chat
Tata Power Microgrid may be a useful analog as they fund the infrastructure and make it available at affordable rates locally; in general there may be analogs from the energy space and can speak with CEEW who has done a bunch of work in the space
Parvesh Sharma, previously head of SFAC, Kamatan, now advisor for Samunnati, promoted lots of FPOs
Namita Vikas at auctusESG is a board member and could help with biz model development and investor perspective on such model (and connections to prospective investors)
Sanjay at Dvara eRegistry has good experience lending within FPOs; they are BC and view FPOs as a channel to reach individual farmers, don’t like the idea of lending to FPOs given weak capacity
RangDe who operate a P2P lending platform. We could sign up as an impact partner, list projects on their site and bring in some retail domestic investors to fund projects. Scheduling time to speak with Sunder (previously at TRIF) to explore furtherÂ