For years, most business development services (BDS) offered to AgSMEs in Uganda have been free, short-term and generic. They reached a small share of enterprises and rarely changed how those businesses were run. Few AgSMEs have been willing to pay for services they had only ever received for free.

Under the Ag-BDS Landscape Strengthening Project (ABLAST), AMEA and its partners set out to test a different approach. Would AgSMEs invest in their own growth if business support was practical, tailored to their needs, and partly paid for by them?

The answer, from two phases of field evidence, is yes.

About the pilot

The BDS Cost Share Facility (CSF) put AgSMEs in the position of paying clients rather than passive beneficiaries. Each enterprise contributed to the cost of its support in cash, in kind (such as training space, meals or logistics), or a blend of both, and the programme covered the balance.

Six BDS providers worked with 52 AgSMEs across 12 districts in Uganda's Central, Eastern, Western and Northern regions, exceeding the target of 50. The enterprises included cooperative societies and private companies working in cereals and grain legumes, coffee, milk, potatoes and pineapple, many of them processing and adding value to their products.

To check provider reports, AMEA ran structured field verification surveys directly with participating enterprises. The findings below draw on both sources.

Results at a glance

• 52 AgSMEs supported, 104% of target
• 100% rated the support good or very good value for money
• 100% said they are willing to pay for comparable services in future
• 21% average increase in business volume and income, against a 15% target
• 93% reported improved business performance (56% greatly improved, 37% slightly improved)

Six things we learned

1. The gap is about quality, not just reach. In the first phase, 81% of participating enterprises had never accessed professional BDS. In the second phase, many had, but 78% of those said earlier support had made little practical difference. It had been short-term, workshop-based and disconnected from their real challenges. Reaching more enterprises with the same kind of support will not close the gap. Delivering better support will.

2. Start with a diagnosis. Every enterprise in the pilot received a structured capacity assessment before any support began. As a result, 94% of the areas providers worked on were driven by what the assessment found, not by what the provider usually offered. Business planning, financial management, market systems, governance and preparing for finance were the most common focus areas.

3. AgSMEs pay for results, not for training. What made enterprises willing to pay was hands-on coaching that led to visible changes in their business (cited by 80 to 88%), links to finance and markets (67 to 81%), and follow-up support after the first engagement. Very few pointed to lower prices or subsidies. Companies indicated they would pay an average of UGX 1,500,000 per BDS package. Cooperatives indicated around UGX 825,000, rising to UGX 2,000,000 for cooperatives in higher-value chains such as coffee, milk and potatoes.

4. One payment model does not fit everyone. Across all 52 enterprises, 62% paid in cash, 21% used a blend of cash and in-kind contributions, and 17% contributed in kind only. The split by organization type was clear: 75% of private companies paid cash only, while cooperatives mostly contributed in kind (45%) or through blended arrangements (35%). Blended arrangements grew in the second phase, suggesting that as trust in the value of BDS builds, so does willingness to put cash on the table.

5. Better money habits come first. The quickest and most consistent gains were in financial discipline. Enterprises began separating business and household money, keeping regular income and expense records, and, for many, knowing for the first time whether they had made a profit at the end of each period. Market segmentation and customer targeting showed the strongest improvement overall, reported by 85% of enterprises.

6. Cooperatives need their own approach. Cooperatives face different challenges from private companies, including governance, member management and how they aggregate and sell produce. They also have different cash flows. A single BDS package and a single cost-sharing rate will not serve both well.

Recommendations for scaling up

The pilot points to a clear set of design requirements for any larger cost-share facility:

• Tier the co-payment. Set contribution rates by enterprise type, value chain profitability and business maturity, with lower rates for early-stage or resource-constrained enterprises and higher rates for established businesses in high-value chains.
• Make needs assessment non-negotiable. A structured capacity assessment should be the entry point for all BDS. This was the single most effective process change in the pilot.
• Build in market and finance links. Buyer introductions, lender referrals and partnership support should be core parts of every BDS package.
• Move from one-off training to coaching. Providers should build lasting relationships with enterprises and leave behind tangible tools, records and business plans.
• Offer flexible ways to contribute. Blended cash and in-kind options, timed to harvests and agricultural revenue cycles, should be the default.
• Invest in providers. All six providers in the pilot were graduates of the ABEEP GROW training delivered by the African Management Institute (AMI). Strengthening provider capacity is a prerequisite, not an extra.
• Track results for longer. Monitor outcomes 6 to 12 months after support, and disaggregate data by gender, age, disability and organization type from the start.

Building a market for quality BDS

The CSF pilot is one part of ABLAST's wider work to strengthen Uganda's BDS ecosystem. That work includes the Uganda BDS Standards, US 18716 guidance for professional farmer organizations, the National BDS Certification Framework, and the establishment of United Business Support Professional Limited (UBSPL) as a BDS provider certification entity.

Together, these give enterprises a way to find trusted, quality-assured providers. The pilot shows the demand is there. The ecosystem work is building the supply side to meet it.

Thank you

AMEA thanks AGRA for financing this pilot and for its wider investment in strengthening BDS markets. We also thank the BDS providers who took on the challenge and shared what they learned: Shona Group, Tree Resources Institute, Agribusiness Impact Initiative Associates, Goldstone Consulting, Finding XY and the Business Readiness and Support Centre.