General Context: Challenges of Financial Autonomy for African NGOs
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an undeniable role in the socio-economic development of the African continent, intervening in crucial areas such as health, education, food security, and emergency response. However, their ability to operate sustainably and autonomously is often hampered by systemic financial challenges. Excessive dependence on external, mostly international, donors characterizes the financial landscape of many African NGOs.1 This exposes them to volatile aid flows, changing donor priorities, and increased competition for limited resources.3 Restricted access to traditional financing mechanisms, such as bank loans, further complicates their financial planning.1
Beyond the simple availability of funds, the very modalities of financing pose problems. The predominance of short-term and/or earmarked funding hinders the ability of NGOs to plan for the long term, invest in their internal structures, retain qualified staff, and develop strategies for sustainable impact. 6 This approach can lead to fragmented interventions, described as “bridges to nowhere” by some in the sector, rather than building solid foundations for community resilience. 6 Criticisms are also emerging regarding the intrinsic sustainability of models entirely dependent on external aid and their capacity to foster genuine community autonomy. 4
Faced with these constraints, social entrepreneurship (SE) is emerging as a promising alternative or complementary strategy for African NGOs seeking to strengthen their financial autonomy and impact.9 Social enterprise, in this context, is defined by its dual mission: to generate a positive social or environmental impact while pursuing an income-generating economic activity.9 These revenues are then mostly reinvested to support the organization’s social mission, thus creating a potential self-financing cycle and reducing dependence on traditional grants and donations.10
- Case Study Presentation: ForAfrika
ForAfrika, formerly known as Joint Aid Management (JAM), is a particularly relevant case study in this area. Recognized as the largest African-led humanitarian and development organization,12 ForAfrika has explicitly integrated social entrepreneurship into its strategy to achieve its long-term transformation goals.17
This report aims to provide an in-depth examination of ForAfrika’s social entrepreneurship approach. It will analyze the organizational context that led to this transition, detail the SE model(s) implemented, assess their impact on the NGO’s financial sustainability and their alignment with its core mission. In addition, it will identify key success factors and challenges encountered, compare ForAfrika’s approach to that of other African actors, and assess the scalability and replicability of its model. The ultimate goal is to draw relevant lessons for other African NGOs wishing to explore social entrepreneurship to strengthen their autonomy and sustain their work. The analysis will be based exclusively on the research materials provided and will follow the eight specific points raised in the initial request.
FORAFRIKA: ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND TRANSITION TOWARDS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP #
FORAFRIKA PROFILE: MISSION, HISTORY AND ACTIVITIES #
The story of ForAfrika begins in 1984, when Peter and Ann Pretorius founded Joint Aid Management (JAM). 13 This initiative was born out of a direct and harrowing experience of Peter Pretorius during the severe famine in Mozambique, where he witnessed the devastation caused by hunger. 13 Initially focused on emergency nutritional assistance, the organization gradually expanded its scope to become a holistic development NGO, working across multiple sectors to meet the complex needs of African communities. 13 In 2022, JAM changed its name to ForAfrika, a decision signaling a desire to assert its pan-African identity and its anchoring on the continent. 19 It is now considered the largest humanitarian and development NGO of African origin and led by Africans.12
ForAfrika’s mission is to “provide the resources that unlock Africa’s abundance so that every African community can prosper,”16 with the ultimate vision of “an Africa that thrives.”14 The organization is grounded in Christian values,15 but emphasizes its commitment to serving all communities without discrimination.14 Its core philosophy views aid not as charity, but as an investment in Africa’s future, aimed at moving communities from dependency to resilience.17
ForAfrika’s activities are structured around an integrated, community-led approach. 17 Its interventions are structured around six main programmatic pillars: Emergencies, Water (WASH – Water, Sanitation and Hygiene), Food (Food Security and Livelihoods), Health (and Nutrition), Education, and Economy (Economic Growth and Empowerment). 14 Concretely, this translates into a wide range of activities, including rapid response to crises 17, drilling wells and setting up drinking water supply systems 14, school feeding programs to combat malnutrition and encourage school enrollment 20, technical and material support to farmers to improve production and income 12, the creation and support of Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) to promote financial inclusion 20, as well as programs to develop professional and entrepreneurial skills. 17
ForAfrika operates in several African countries, although the exact number may vary slightly depending on the source and the year (between 6 and 8 countries are usually cited, including Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Uganda, and sometimes the Central African Republic and Ethiopia). 13 The organization also has a network of international support offices (e.g., in the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, Germany) that play a role in fundraising and awareness-raising. 28 In terms of leadership, following the death of Peter Pretorius in 2018, 25 Ann Pretorius assumed leadership before their son, Isak Pretorius, became the current CEO of the group. 13 The organization employs a significant number of people, with figures ranging from 623 (for ForAfrica Operations) to around 1,000 mentioned.13
This four-decade long history, born from a direct response to a humanitarian crisis and evolving into a complex and integrated development approach, gives ForAfrika considerable legitimacy and trust among the communities it serves. 23 This established relationship, based on a long-term presence and an understanding of local contexts, represents a fundamental and potentially differentiating asset as the organization deploys its social entrepreneurship strategy, capitalizing on ties forged over the years. 45 Unlike new social enterprises that must build this trust from scratch, ForAfrika can rely on this accumulated social capital.
Furthermore, the name change from JAM to ForAfrika in 2022 19 appears to go beyond mere communication. It coincides with a strategic redefinition that includes social entrepreneurship and affirms a strong pan-African identity: “Africans serving Africa.”16 This assertion suggests a desire to take ownership of development solutions, seeking endogenous models and potentially reducing the perceived dependence on traditional external approaches and funding. The adoption of social entrepreneurship is thus part of this broader strategic repositioning towards African solutions for African challenges.
TRADITIONAL FINANCING LANDSCAPE AND FINANCIAL CHALLENGES #
Historically, ForAfrika has relied on traditional funding sources to support its extensive operations. Major institutional donors, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)17 and various UN agencies like the World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEF, and FAO 20, have been key financial partners. Donations from individuals, churches, corporations, and foundations, collected through its international offices and online platforms, constitute another important source of income.17 In-kind donations (such as food or equipment) also represent a very significant portion of the organization’s total resources.19
However, this traditional funding model has inherent vulnerabilities, which ForAfrika has not escaped. The most concrete example is the recent $5 million cut in USAID funding, directly affecting critical projects in South Sudan, Uganda, and Mozambique.17 This incident illustrates the precariousness induced by dependence on a limited number of major donors.
Beyond one-off budget cuts, ForAfrika, through its CEO, has expressed more structural concerns about the very nature of some traditional funding.6 The predominance of short-term and/or strictly project-specific funding makes it difficult to implement long-term transformation programs. These arrangements can hamper organizational flexibility, prevent the coverage of essential operational costs (including the salaries of skilled staff needed to design and manage complex interventions), and limit the NGO’s ability to respond quickly and agilely to emerging crises or development opportunities.6
These challenges are part of a broader context in which African NGOs, particularly local organizations, struggle to access sufficient and sustainable funding. Competition for funds is intense, often to the detriment of local actors compared to large international NGOs.3 Diversifying revenue sources remains a major challenge for many.1 Moreover, ForAfrika’s intervention contexts are often marked by structural challenges – poor infrastructure, political or security instability, the impacts of climate change, persistent cycles of poverty – which increase the needs of populations and complicate program planning and implementation, adding additional pressure on financial resources.39
THE STRATEGIC TRANSITION TOWARDS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP #
It is in this context of financial challenges and a desire to deepen its impact that ForAfrika has made a major strategic transition by integrating social entrepreneurship into the heart of its model. This approach appears to be a direct response to the limitations and precariousness of traditional financing.6 It is also aligned with the organization’s philosophy, which favors an “investment” approach aimed at resilience and sustainable autonomy, rather than simple charitable aid.17 The stated ambition is to enable communities to go beyond the stage of simple self-sufficiency to achieve true commercial viability.17
This transition is not a peripheral addition but a central component of ForAfrika’s overall strategy. The 2022 rebranding and vision redefinition coincided with the formalization of this direction.19 A specific division, “ForAfrika Social Enterprise” (FASE), was created to lead these initiatives.17 Social entrepreneurship is explicitly positioned as the second phase of the organization’s Theory of Change, logically extending the work accomplished in the humanitarian and development phases.45
CEO Isak Pretorius’s critique of traditional short-term funding 6 reveals more than just a budgetary constraint. It suggests a potential philosophical tension between ForAfrika’s vision of deep, long-term transformation (“investment,” “resilience”17) and the often restrictive modalities of traditional aid. From this perspective, social entrepreneurship is not just a revenue diversification tactic, but emerges as a strategic tool aimed at aligning financial resources more closely with the organization’s vision of sustainable autonomy, both for itself and for the communities it supports.19
Tableau 1: Profil Organisationnel de ForAfrika (Synthèse)
Characteristic | Detail | Main Sources |
Current Name | ForAfrika | 19 |
Former Name | Joint Aid Management (JAM) | 13 |
Year of Foundation | 1984 | 13 |
Founders | Peter Pretorius (deceased) & Ann Pretorius | 13 |
Status | Humanitarian and development NGO | 13 |
Head office | Johannesburg, South Africa | 13 |
Key Mission | Providing the resources that unlock Africa’s abundance so every community thrives | 16 |
Key Vision | For Africa to prosper | 14 |
Programmatic Pillars | Emergencies, Water (WASH), Food (Security and Livelihoods), Health & Nutrition, Education, Economy | 14 |
Countries of Operation (examples) | Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Uganda, Central African Republic, Ethiopia | 13 |
Size (indicative) | ~600-1000 employees; >4 million people reached by 2023 | 13 |
Traditional Funding Sources | Institutional donors (USAID, UN), Private donations (individuals, companies, foundations), In-kind donations | 17 |
Current Leadership (CEO) | Isak Pretorius | 13 |
FORAFRIKA’S SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MODEL: A DETAILED ANALYSIS #
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THEORY OF CHANGE AND STRATEGIC INTEGRATION #
ForAfrika’s social entrepreneurship approach is not an isolated initiative, but an integrated component of its overall strategy and Theory of Change. It is explicitly positioned as Phase 2 of this theory, following on from and building on the foundations laid by Phase 1, which encompasses traditional humanitarian and development activities (Emergency Response, Early Recovery and Transition, and Transformational Development).19
The fundamental objective of this Phase 2 is ambitious: to support individuals and communities that have achieved a level of self-sufficiency thanks to the interventions of Phase 1 towards a higher stage, that of commercial viability and economic development (“thriving”).17 It is about moving from a logic of survival and satisfaction of basic needs to a logic of sustainable and autonomous economic growth.
A key strategic feature of this model is its commitment to capitalizing on the achievements of Phase 1, including the deep relationships of trust and contextual knowledge developed over years of fieldwork.45 Social entrepreneurship is therefore not seen as a separate activity, but as a natural and logical extension of development work, offering a progressive pathway for beneficiaries. This integrated approach seeks to distinguish itself from the social entrepreneurship efforts sometimes observed in Africa, which can be isolated, disconnected from community development realities, or primarily concentrated in urban areas with limited impact.17
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP HUBS: STRUCTURE AND OPERATION #
At the heart of ForAfrika’s social entrepreneurship model are the ForAfrika Social Enterprise Hubs (FASE Hubs). These Hubs are designed as physical infrastructures located within communities, functioning as centralized platforms offering a diverse range of services.45
A distinctive feature of these Hubs is their scalable nature. They are designed to progress in stages—from micro-hubs to medium-sized hubs (“mid”), then to macro-hubs (“super hub”)—depending on the expansion of the services offered and the economic maturation of the community and local businesses they serve. 45 Specific criteria define these different levels (“tiers”), based on indicators such as the number of partner agricultural cooperatives, the number of active VSLAs, the number of households reached, or the volume of loans managed. 45 This modular design suggests built-in scalability from the start, allowing for gradual adaptation to local capacities and organic growth aligned with community development.
Operationally, FASE Hubs are structured to operate as for-profit commercial centers.45 This commercial orientation aims to ensure their own long-term financial viability by applying sound management practices. A fundamental principle of the model is that profits generated by the Hubs’ activities are not distributed to shareholders, but are reinvested in ForAfrika’s broader development activities, thus supporting its overall mission and creating a potential cycle of partial self-financing.45
The services offered by the Hubs are primarily focused on strengthening the agricultural value chain, although support may extend to other sectors relevant to the local economy.45 The range of services typically includes:
- Facilitated access to quality agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers).45
- Agricultural extension and technical advisory services.45
- Access to mechanized services (tractor rental, etc.).45
- Post-harvest storage solutions to reduce losses.45
- Opportunities for processing agricultural products to add value.45
- Support for market access and product marketing.45
- Tailored financial services: A key mechanism is the provision of loans in the form of vouchers that farmers use to pay for services provided by the Hub. 45 ForAfrika Social Enterprise (FASE) plays a dual role here as a financial service provider and collateral manager (e.g., by securing future loans on previous harvests). 45 The financing offering is designed to be scalable, ranging from micro-loans (sometimes at zero or low interest rates initially) to medium-sized loans, and then to larger financing (debt, equity, asset finance) as the supported businesses grow.45
- Training programs, both for farmers (agricultural techniques, management) and for local entrepreneurs who could provide some of the services offered by the Hub (mechanization, processing, etc.).45
- Other logistics services such as supply chain management and distribution.45
An innovative aspect of the model is its built-in (de-risking) mechanism.45 By providing loans in the form of vouchers redeemable for specific services within the Hub, FASE ensures that the financing is used for its intended purpose and monitors the quality of the services received by the farmer, thereby reducing the risk of default. Simultaneously, this system creates a captive market for local businesses that provide these services (e.g., equipment rental, processing), reducing their own business risk during their start-up phase and encouraging the development of a local economic ecosystem.45
The dual role assumed by ForAfrika SE – that of service provider via the Hub and that of financing provider via loans and vouchers 45 – creates an initially highly controlled ecosystem. This approach is effective in minimizing risks and guiding entrepreneurs’ first steps. 45 However, it raises important questions about the future transition of businesses towards greater autonomy from ForAfrika. How the transition from this protected environment to competition in the open market and access to external financing – the ultimate objectives of maturity stage 45 – will take place will be decisive for the long-term sustainability of the impact.
PATHWAYS OF BENEFICIARIES AND COMPANIES #
The FASE model is designed around evolving pathways, both for individuals and for the businesses they create or develop.
The Individual Journey typically begins when the person is a beneficiary of ForAfrika’s humanitarian or development programs (Phase 1).45 As the interventions (food aid, access to water, basic training) progress, the individual progresses towards self-sufficiency. It is at this stage that they can enter Phase 2, dedicated to social entrepreneurship, with the objective of achieving commercial viability.45 To support this transition, ForAfrika has developed a detailed profiling system for individuals at each stage, assessing various indicators such as income level, acquired skills, employment status, food security, access to health services, the state of local infrastructure, vulnerability to shocks (conflict, climate) and existing economic opportunities.45 This profiling then makes it possible to assess the specific needs of the individual at each phase of their entrepreneurial journey (Early Stage, Growth, Mature). Typical challenges identified include limited access to capital, high vulnerability to climate change, insufficient access to natural resources (water, energy), lack of technical or managerial skills, low integration into value chains and limited access to markets and information, as well as restricted access to technology.45 The interventions offered by the FASE Hubs are then tailored to meet these specific needs and enable the individual to progress.
The Business Journey evolves in parallel with that of individuals.45 The FASE model distinguishes three main stages:
- Early Stage: The individual moves from self-sufficiency to the creation of a micro-enterprise.45 Typical characteristics might be a small cultivated area (e.g., 3-10 acres), modest annual production and income, and employment of a limited number of workers (e.g., 3-30).45 Access to capital is through micro-loans or flexible financing (“pay what you can afford”).45
- Growth Stage: The microenterprise grows into a well-established and profitable small business.45 Farm size, production, revenues, and number of employees increase significantly.45 Access to medium-sized loans becomes possible.45
- Mature Stage: The business reaches medium size with strong profitability.45 It operates on larger land areas (e.g., +50 acres), generates substantial revenues, and employs a larger number of people (e.g., +150).45 Access to larger commercial loans and asset financing, potentially through syndications, is being considered.45
This structured journey, with metrics and services adapted to each stage, aims to provide progressive and consistent support to entrepreneurs.
SPECIFIC INITIATIVE: THE DAIRY INITIATIVE IN UGANDA (PARTNERSHIP WITH AMOS DAIRIES) #
A concrete and ambitious illustration of the FASE strategy is the recently launched initiative in the dairy sector in Uganda.17 Led by ForAfrika Social Enterprise, this initiative aims to transform the local dairy supply chain and empower emerging dairy farmers by enabling them to increase their production and sustainably improve their incomes.17
A central element of this initiative is a strategic partnership with Amos Dairies Ltd, a major dairy processor in Uganda.56 Amos Dairies, a subsidiary of an Indian company, has significant processing capacity, sources from thousands of local smallholder farmers, and exports a large portion of its products (including casein, ghee, and butter).56 The company has also attracted private investment, including $10 million from Agri-Vie Fund II, to support its growth.58
As part of this partnership, an off-take agreement worth $120 million was concluded.17 This agreement guarantees a stable and large-scale market outlet for the milk produced by farmers participating in the ForAfrika SE initiative. This perfectly illustrates the “de-risking” principle dear to the Hubs model, by offering a secure market to producers.17
ForAfrika SE’s role is that of initiator and orchestrator of the project.17 The economic model aims for a “double return”: on the one hand, to generate secure income through the commercial agreement with Amos Dairies, and on the other hand, to reinvest any profits from FASE into ForAfrika’s broader mission, thus contributing to the transition of communities from emergency aid to economic resilience.53
This initiative represents a significant test for the FASE model. It demonstrates ForAfrika’s ability (or ambition) to structure complex partnerships with leading private commercial actors, funded by external capital.58 The success of this collaboration will be a key indicator of the Hub model’s viability on a larger scale and its ability to effectively integrate smallholders into lucrative commercial value chains, thus going beyond the scope of more direct interventions traditionally carried out by the NGO.
ANOTHER INITIATIVE: DIGITALIZATION OF VSLAS IN RWANDA (AMATSINDA.RW) #
Another notable initiative, although potentially positioned at the junction between Phase 1 (Transformational Development) and Phase 2 (ES), is the project to digitize Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) in Rwanda.41
ForAfrika found that traditional VSLAs, while essential for rural financial inclusion, suffered from limitations: error-prone and time-consuming paper-based record-keeping, a lack of transparency that could erode trust, and low levels of financial literacy among members that hampered informed decision-making.41
To address these challenges, ForAfrika developed Amatsinda.rw, a digital platform designed specifically for the needs of Rwandan VSLAs. Developed in Kinyarwanda and accessible via smartphone, it enables real-time tracking of savings and loans, automates recordkeeping with error checks, and offers a user-friendly interface. The development approach emphasized understanding the local context and integrating the Rwandan cultural concept of “Amatsinda” (groups).41
The results reported following the pilot phase are positive: significant improvement in the efficiency of financial management, drastic reduction in accounting errors, increased confidence of members in the operations of their VSLA, measurable improvement in financial literacy scores, and a notable increase in the participation of women in financial decisions within the groups.41
Although this initiative can be seen as a capacity-building activity at the end of Phase 1, it plays a crucial role in preparing the ground for social entrepreneurship. By improving the financial governance, transparency, and skills of VSLA members, Amatsinda.rw strengthens their capacity to manage larger funds and potentially participate in more ambitious economic initiatives, such as those offered by the FASE Hubs. It directly contributes to overcoming the challenge of limited financial inclusion, identified as a major obstacle in the entrepreneurial journey.45
Table 2: ForAfrika Social Entrepreneurship Hubs Model (Overview)
Key Component | Description | Main Sources |
Main Objective | Moving communities from self-sufficiency to commercial viability and thriving | 17 |
Strategic Integration | Phase 2 of the Theory of Change, building on Phase 1 (Humanitarian & Development) | 19 |
Structure of Hubs | Scalable physical infrastructures: Micro -> Mid -> Super Hubs (Tier 3 to Tier 1) | 45 |
Key Services Offered | Mainly agricultural value chain: Inputs, Mechanization, Extension, Storage, Processing, Market access, Financing, Training, Logistics | 45 |
Financing Mechanisms | Internal loans (FASE) in the form of Vouchers for Hub services; Scalable financing (micro -> commercial) according to company maturity | 45 |
Reinvestment of Profits | Profits generated by the Hubs (operating for profit) are reinvested in ForAfrika’s development mission | 45 |
De-risking mechanism | Voucher system creating a captive market for local services; Offtake agreements (e.g. Uganda Dairy) guaranteeing outlets | 17 |
IMPACT ASSESSMENT: SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY #
INCOME DIVERSIFICATION AND FINANCIAL HEALTH #
One of the major objectives of NGOs adopting social entrepreneurship is to diversify their revenue streams in order to reduce their historical dependence on traditional donations and grants, which are often fluctuating and subject to constraints. 6 ForAfrika’s FASE mod
el clearly fits into this logic, with Hubs designed to operate as commercial entities generating their own revenues and aiming for financial sustainability. 45 The dairy initiative in Uganda, for example, explicitly targets secure revenues via a commercial offtake agreement. 53 The example of BRAC, an international NGO also operating in Africa and managing to self-finance a substantial part of its activities through its social enterprises and microfinance (up to 73% mentioned), illustrates the potential of this type of model in the long term.11
However, assessing the current financial impact of the FASE strategy on ForAfrika’s overall revenues is hampered by a lack of specific data. The available annual reports for 2022 and 2023 present overall revenue figures (combining cash contributions and significant in-kind donations), but do not provide a clear breakdown distinguishing the share generated by social entrepreneurship activities from that from traditional donations or grants.19 The 2023 report even states that the full development of the FASE division was planned for 2024,19 suggesting that its direct financial contribution to the organization’s overall revenues in 2022 and 2023 was likely still limited or in its early stages. The stated ambition nevertheless remains considerable, with FASE ultimately aiming to provide a platform for economic development for 6 million people.19
Despite the absence of precise figures on FASE’s revenues, the model explicitly provides for any profits generated by the Hubs to be reinvested in ForAfrika’s development activities.45 This reinvestment mechanism creates, on paper, a potential virtuous circle where the commercial success of social enterprises directly contributes to financing the organization’s social mission, thus strengthening its capacity for action and autonomy. The effective realization of this potential will, however, depend on the Hubs’ ability to achieve sufficient profitability in often difficult operating environments. Achieving profitability for social enterprises in rural Africa, faced with infrastructure, market, and climate challenges,39 is a major obstacle that determines the success of this self-financing loop.61
Regarding ForAfrika’s overall financial health, available data shows an upward trend in total revenues in recent years (from $52M in 2021 to approximately $54-65M in 2022 – figures vary slightly between reports 20 – and $57M in 2023).19 The organization also maintains a very high allocation of its resources to programs (approximately 91-92% according to annual reports 19, or even higher for the US entity according to Charity Navigator 63), which demonstrates a certain operational efficiency. Nevertheless, financial challenges persist. The USAID budget cut 17 and the CEO’s repeated pleas for long-term and less restrictive funding 6 clearly indicate that, despite the adoption of the ES strategy, dependence on traditional donors and the associated financial constraints remain a significant reality for ForAfrika at this stage. Complete financial autonomy remains a long-term objective.
STRENGTHENING PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT AND ALIGNMENT WITH MISSION #
Beyond the financial aspect, it is crucial to assess how ForAfrika’s social entrepreneurship initiatives align with its core mission and strengthen its programmatic impact. The FASE model is explicitly designed as a logical extension of existing development programs, offering a continuum for beneficiaries to progress toward economic autonomy.45
The activities carried out under FASE, particularly those of the agriculture-focused Hubs, are in direct alignment with ForAfrika’s historical programmatic pillars, particularly food security and livelihoods, as well as economic growth.17 This strong synergy between commercial activities and the organization’s core social mission is a major asset. It helps ensure organizational coherence and could be a key factor in avoiding the phenomenon of “mission drift,” a risk often associated with NGOs adopting business models to generate income.65 When commercial activity is intrinsically linked to the desired social impact, as is the case here with improving agricultural incomes or financial inclusion, the risk of commercial objectives taking precedence over the social mission is potentially mitigated. This coherence also strengthens the legitimacy of the SE approach, both internally and with partners and communities.
FASE initiatives aim to directly support ForAfrika’s social objectives in several ways. By stimulating local economic activity and supporting service businesses (processing, mechanization, etc.), the Hubs have the potential to create local jobs. 45 Improving agricultural techniques and accessing inputs and markets aim to increase farmers’ incomes and strengthen food security. 17 The VSLA digitalization initiative in Rwanda has demonstrated its ability to improve financial inclusion, particularly for women, and strengthen their economic decision-making power. 41 Similarly, the dairy initiative in Uganda has the explicit objective of economic empowerment of producers and improving their livelihoods. 17
Concrete examples illustrate this integration. The story of Thomas, a farmer who went from food insecurity to generating significant profits through commercial agriculture, is presented as an illustration of ForAfrika’s “proven process,” which potentially combines development support and market access facilitation.19 Similarly, the articulation observed in Rwanda between support for early childhood development (ECD) centers and the creation of agricultural groups and VSLAs for parents shows how social interventions (education, health) can be synergistically coupled with economic empowerment strategies.20
Finally, the job creation potential of social enterprises is an important aspect of their impact.66 The FASE Hubs model, by supporting the growth of farms (which require more labor 45) and encouraging the development of local service businesses, could contribute to the creation of direct and indirect jobs in rural communities.
Table 3: ForAfrika Financial Overview (Recent Years – Global Data)
Indicator | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Sources |
Total Income (Cash + Donations in Kind) | ~52 M USD | ~54-65 M USD* | ~57 M USD | 19 |
Cash Income | N/A | ~25 M USD | ~29 M USD | 19 |
Donations in Kind Received | N/A | ~29 M USD | ~28 M USD | 19 |
Total Expenses | ~16 M USD** | ~21 M USD** | ~35 M USD** | 63 |
% Program Expenditure | ~94.4%** | ~96.7%** / 92%*** | ~98.3%** / 91%**** | 19 |
% Admin Expenses/Fund Collection | ~5.6%** | ~3.3%** / 8%*** | ~1.7%** / 9%**** | 19 |
Specific Contribution of the ES to Income | Not available | Not available | Not available (FASE in development) | 19 |
*Note: Figures for 2022 vary between report 20 ($54M) and 49 ($65M).
**Note: Expenditure figures and percentages from 63 (Charity Navigator) potentially relate to the US entity (USA ForAfrika) for the corresponding fiscal years and may differ from the overall consolidated figures.
***Note: Overall percentage 2022 based on 49/.20
****Note: Overall percentage 2023 according to 19
IMPLEMENTATION DYNAMICS: SUCCESS FACTORS AND CHALLENGES #
Implementing a social entrepreneurship strategy as ambitious as ForAfrika’s involves navigating a complex environment, building on specific strengths while facing significant obstacles.
KEY LEVERS FOR SUCCESS (IDENTIFIED OR POTENTIAL) #
Several factors appear to play or could play a determining role in the success of the FASE approach:
- Pre-existing Trust and Community Relations: As mentioned earlier, ForAfrika’s deep historical roots and the trust built over decades of presence and concrete actions constitute a major comparative advantage. This legitimacy facilitates the introduction and acceptance of new initiatives such as FASE Hubs within communities.45
- Integrated and Coherent Approach: The seamless connection between traditional development programs (Phase 1) and social entrepreneurship initiatives (Phase 2) provides a logical and progressive path for beneficiaries, avoiding a sudden break.45 In addition, the integration of multiple services (technical, financial, commercial) within the Hubs allows for a more comprehensive and holistic response to the complex needs of rural entrepreneurs.45
- De-risking Model: Implementing mechanisms to mitigate the risks inherent in rural entrepreneurship is a key factor in attracting businesses. Whether through guaranteed outlets (via offtake agreements like the one with Amos Dairies 17) or facilitating access to services and financing through the voucher system 45, these approaches reduce uncertainty for farmers and local business partners.
- Adaptation to the Local Context: The approach of detailed profiling of individuals and businesses according to their stage of development 45 and the adaptation of the services offered according to the level (Tier) of the Hubs 45 demonstrate a desire to adjust the intervention to the specific realities of each community. The example of the Amatsinda.rw platform in Rwanda, designed taking into account the local language and cultural concepts 41, also illustrates this contextual sensitivity.
- Leadership and Strategic Vision: The success of any major organizational transformation, and in particular the adoption of social entrepreneurship, relies on strong, visionary and committed leadership.51 ForAfrika’s management, particularly its CEO Isak Pretorius, appears to be actively promoting this vision of transitioning towards more sustainable models.6
- African Anchorage and Local Knowledge: ForAfrika’s claimed identity as an African organization, employing mainly local staff with intimate knowledge of the challenges and opportunities of the continent 12, is a valuable asset for designing and implementing relevant and adapted solutions.
- Strategic Partnerships: The ability to build effective partnerships is essential. This includes collaborations with the private sector (such as Amos Dairies 17), but also maintaining strong relationships with traditional partners (UN agencies, local and national governments) that remain crucial for the operational environment and large-scale impact.20
OBSTACLES ENCOUNTERED AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES (IDENTIFIED OR POTENTIAL) #
The implementation of the FASE model also faces significant challenges, common to many social entrepreneurship initiatives in Africa:
- Access to Appropriate Capital: This is a near-universal challenge for African social enterprises. Funding is often difficult to secure, particularly for growth-stage businesses that have moved beyond microcredit but are not yet mature enough to attract traditional venture capitalists (the “missing middle,” often estimated at USD 30,000 to USD 250,000).1 ForAfrika’s model attempts to address this through scalable internal lending,45 but the ability to finance large-scale growth for Hubs and partner businesses will inevitably depend on its ability to raise larger amounts of external capital.
- Required Skills: Social entrepreneurship requires a specific skill set, combining an understanding of social issues with capabilities in business management, finance, marketing, logistics, etc.6 ForAfrika must have these qualified personnel within its FASE division, and the supported entrepreneurs must also acquire these skills.17 Recruiting and training suitable talent is a challenge.6 The mitigation strategy involves integrating training into the Hubs model.45
- Multiple Risk Management: FASE activities, particularly agricultural ones, are exposed to a multitude of risks: climatic hazards 39, market price volatility 45, operational risks linked to precarious infrastructure, credit risks linked to loan repayments 45, and security or political risks in certain intervention areas.45 Proactive management of these risks is crucial. Strategies include “de-risking” through market guarantees, the promotion of climate-resilient agricultural practices 19, and potentially the diversification of activities within the Hubs.
- Social Mission / Commercial Profitability Balance: Maintaining a delicate balance between the pursuit of social objectives and the need to achieve commercial profitability to ensure the sustainability of Hubs is an inherent tension in hybrid models.65 There is a risk that financial imperatives will override the social mission. ForAfrika’s strategy is based on reinvesting profits in the mission 45 and the strong initial alignment between the ES activity and historical social objectives.
- Regulatory Framework and Institutional Environment: FASE Hubs operate in contexts often characterized by deficient infrastructure (transport, energy, communication) 39, possible instability 45, and regulatory frameworks that are not always designed to specifically support social enterprises or SMEs.1 Navigating these complex environments requires good local knowledge and adaptability.12
- Scalability Challenges: Moving from pilot projects or micro-hubs to an extensive network of larger hubs (“super hubs”) presents a major challenge in terms of financial investment, logistical complexity, management systems, and organizational capabilities.45 Managing the increasing complexity as the FASE model scales up will be critical. This involves managing a growing number of beneficiaries/clients, larger loans, more extensive supply chains, and potentially more diverse partnerships. The need for advanced managerial skills will become exponentially greater.6
- Impact Measurement and Accountability: Credibly demonstrating both the social and economic impact of FASE initiatives is essential to justify the model, attract future funding (including from impact investors), and ensure accountability to stakeholders.61 This requires robust Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) systems.42
It is interesting to note that the “de-risking” mechanism 45, although presented as a success factor, could potentially hinder the development of real resilience and autonomy of entrepreneurs if they remain dependent on the protected ecosystem of the Hub for too long. Prolonged dependence on a captive market 45 or on potentially subsidized services and financing 45 could hinder the acquisition of the competitiveness necessary to operate on the open market, which is nevertheless the objective of the maturity stage.45 A clear strategy for a gradual transition to the outside world therefore seems necessary but is not explicitly detailed in the available information.
Finally, ForAfrika’s emphasis on the progressive individual pathway 45, accompanying beneficiaries from development programs to social entrepreneurship, could constitute a response to the criticism sometimes leveled at SE initiatives that focus only on the most promising entrepreneurs (“cherry-picking”), at the risk of neglecting the most vulnerable populations. ForAfrika’s approach seems to aim for broader inclusion by integrating SE into a continuum of support, which is consistent with its overall mission of serving vulnerable communities.19
Comparative Perspectives: ForAfrika and Other Social Entrepreneurship Models in Africa #
TRENDS IN SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE AFRICAN NGO SECTOR #
Social entrepreneurship is gaining ground on the African continent, driven by increased recognition of its potential to provide innovative and sustainable solutions to persistent social and environmental challenges.9 Several trends are emerging:
- Growing Motivation for Transition: More and more traditional NGOs, faced with the precariousness of traditional funding, are considering or adopting social entrepreneurship models to ensure their sustainability and impact. The example of Community Initiatives Concern (CINCO) in Kenya, which undertook a deliberate transformation from a grant-dependent NGO to a social enterprise with support from the British Council, illustrates this trend well.74
- Sectoral Diversity: African social entrepreneurship is not confined to a single sector. Initiatives are emerging and developing in diverse areas such as agriculture and food security 2, health 2, education 9, access to renewable energy 9, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) 66, and waste management 66, and information and communication technologies (ICT).65
- Adoption of Hybrid Models: Faced with sometimes unclear or unsuitable legal frameworks, many organizations are adopting hybrid structures, combining a non-profit entity (for the social mission and receiving donations) and a for-profit entity (for revenue-generating commercial activities).65 Examples in Ghana, such as Soronko Solutions/Foundation or Sangy Nursing Services/Foundation, illustrate this approach.78
- Recurring Challenges: Despite the enthusiasm, African social enterprises share well-documented common challenges: difficult access to suitable financing (especially for the growth phase or “missing middle”), the lack of integrated support ecosystems (advice, mentoring, networks), low visibility, sometimes restrictive or unclear regulatory and tax frameworks, and a crucial need for specific social enterprise management skills.1
- Strong Influence of Context: Social entrepreneurship models are not universal. Their form, strategy, and success are strongly conditioned by the institutional (public policies, legal framework), economic (stability, access to markets), social (cultural norms, social capital), and historical (colonial heritage, conflicts) context specific to each country or region.73 Careful adaptation to local realities is therefore essential.73
- Focus on Local Impact and Empowerment: A characteristic often highlighted for African social enterprises is their commitment to using local resources, creating jobs within communities, and promoting the empowerment of marginalized populations (women, youth, refugees), sometimes drawing on endogenous cultural values such as Ubuntu.9
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MODELS (EX: FORAFRIKA VS. BRAC) #
Comparing ForAfrika’s approach to other social entrepreneurship models present in Africa, notable similarities and differences emerge.
- ForAfrika: Integrated “Hub & Spoke” Model
- The FASE model is characterized by a strong integration with the NGO’s pre-existing development activities, forming a continuum.45 The ES is an evolution, not a separate entity.
- There is a strong initial sectoral focus on agriculture through the central concept of Hubs.45
- The model is based on internal financing mechanisms and centralized “de-risking” at the start (FASE loans/vouchers).45
- Reinvestment of Hub profits into the NGO’s overall mission is a key principle.45
- ForAfrika’s ES strategy is relatively recent in its formalization and large-scale deployment as a dedicated division (since approximately 2022-2023).19
- BRAC: Diversified and Mature Large-Scale Model
- BRAC is a global pioneer in large-scale social entrepreneurship, with decades of experience.81 Originating in Bangladesh, BRAC has adapted and deployed its models in several African countries (Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ghana).11
- BRAC’s social enterprise portfolio is extremely diverse, spanning sectors ranging from retail (Aarong, its flagship) to dairy, seeds, fisheries, handicrafts, and even a bank and a university.10
- BRAC has achieved a very high level of self-financing through income generated by its social enterprises and microfinance activities (73% reported, aiming for 100%), giving it remarkable financial independence.11
- BRAC’s social enterprises have a clear dual objective: to create a direct social impact (employment, access to markets for the poor) and to generate profits, a significant portion of which (about 50% mentioned) is reinvested in BRAC’s development programs.10
- BRAC’s approach is holistic, closely integrating social enterprises, microfinance and social programs (health, education) into an ecosystem of solutions.11
The comparison with BRAC is particularly illuminating. It highlights the considerable difference in maturity and scale between the two organizations when it comes to social entrepreneurship. ForAfrika is in the process of building and validating its FASE 19 strategy, while BRAC is capitalizing on a proven and diversified model already generating substantial financial autonomy.10 This suggests that the path to significant financial independence through SE is likely a long one and may require diversification beyond a single initial model or sector, such as ForAfrika’s Agricultural Hubs.
- Other Comparative Models:
- Incubators/Trainers (e.g., SINA in Uganda 73): These models focus on empowering and training individuals (often young or marginalized) to create their own social enterprises. The emphasis is on developing entrepreneurial skills and ideation, rather than on the direct management of businesses by the NGO itself. Other actors such as LEAP Africa in Nigeria 2 or platforms such as MEST 87 follow similar logics.
- Social Technology Enterprises (e.g., mPharma, Solar Sister 66): These companies often use technology to solve specific social problems (access to medicines, clean energy). Their business model may be closer to that of a technology startup, with issues related to innovation, intellectual property, and fundraising from impact investors or venture capital.76 They can be created independently of traditional NGOs.
- Structured Hybrid Models (e.g., CINCO 74, Soronko 78): These examples show organizations that deliberately create separate legal structures (a non-profit arm and a commercial arm) to manage their dual mission. This can provide legal and financial clarity, but can also create governance complexities.
- Theoretical Distinction (South Africa 77): The distinction between “entrepreneurial NGOs” (beneficiary-centered, generating revenue to support the mission) and “social enterprises” (client-centered, operating commercially with a social mission) is useful. ForAfrika’s model appears to navigate between these two poles. The FASE Hubs 45 initially serve beneficiaries of development programs (Phase 1), but then treat them as clients (of Hub services, loans) in a commercial operation (Phase 2). Managing this dual identity (beneficiary/client) and the transition from one to the other will be a key issue in maintaining trust and alignment with the social mission.
ForAfrika’s approach of developing its ES model internally and in a way that is deeply integrated with its existing operations 45 differs from some other models that rely more on external support structures (incubators 2), public-private partnerships 71, or sharper structural separations. 77 If successful, this “organic” approach could offer an interesting example of deep integration for other large, established NGOs that wish to pivot to social entrepreneurship without creating entirely new or separate entities.
Table 4: Comparison of Social Entrepreneurship Models (ForAfrika vs. Other Archetypes)
Criteria | ForAfrika (FASE Hub Model) | BRAC (Diversified Model) | Incubator Model (eg: SINA) | Tech SE model (eg: mPharma) | Structured Hybrid Model (eg: CINCO) |
Main Model | Integrated service hubs (initial agri-focus), continuous beneficiary journey | Diversified portfolio of autonomous social enterprises + Microfinance | Training and incubation of young/marginalized people to create their own ES | Specific technological solution to a social problem | Structural separation (NGO + Related company) |
NGO/ES Integration | Very strong integration (ES = Phase 2 of NGO programs) | Strong programmatic integration, but ES with separate management | The NGO trains entrepreneurs, does not manage ES | Often independent of traditional NGO structures | Legal separation, strategic/financial link |
Key Sectors | Agriculture (initial), other potential | Very diversified (retail, agro, finance, etc.) | Variable (depending on the projects incubated) | Health, Energy, Fintech, etc. | Variable (depending on NGO mission & company activity) |
Main Income Mechanism | Sale of services via Hubs (vouchers), loans | Sales of goods/services from various ES, microfinance interests | Training costs (?), income from incubated ES (?) | Sale of tech products/services, licenses | Income from the related company, donations/grants for the NGO |
ES Maturity Stage | Emerging / Deploying | Very Mature (decades) | Variable (depending on incubator/cohort) | Variable (start-up to scale-up) | In transition / Established (as applicable) |
Reported Self-Financing Level | Low / Not currently documented | Very high (eg: 73%+) | Not applicable / Variable | Variable (depends on the business model) | Variable (company objective = support the NGO) |
Geographic Focus | Several African countries | Bangladesh + Several African and Asian countries | Mainly Uganda (for SINA) | Pan-African / Country Specific | Kenya (for CINCO) |
Main Sources | 19 | 10 | 73 | 66 | 74 |
SCALABILITY, REPLICABILITY AND LESSONS LEARNED #
POTENTIAL FOR ADAPTATION AND REPLICATION OF THE FORAFRIKA MODEL #
The social entrepreneurship model developed by ForAfrika, centered on FASE Hubs, has characteristics that could promote its scalability (upgrading within ForAfrika) and its replicability (adoption by other organizations).
Among the factors favoring this diffusion, we can note:
- The modular and scalable design of the Hubs (micro, mid, super).45 This inherent flexibility allows, in theory, to adapt the intensity and range of services to the local context and available resources, making the model applicable to different scales of intervention.
- The initial focus on agriculture.45 As this sector is fundamental to economies and livelihoods in many rural African contexts 2, a model focused on improving the agricultural value chain has potentially broad relevance.
- The integrated approach.45 The fact that the FASE model can be “grafted” onto existing development programs (Phase 1) could make it attractive to other large development NGOs seeking to add an economic empowerment component to their interventions.
- The “de-risking” mechanism.45 Reducing uncertainty for local entrepreneurs, through guaranteed markets or easier access to financing and services, is a strong argument in precarious economic environments and could facilitate the buy-in of beneficiaries and local partners.
However, the scalability and replicability of the FASE model also face limiting factors and are highly dependent on contextual specificities:
- Dependence on pre-existing trust. The FASE model explicitly capitalizes on the long-standing relationships and trust established by ForAfrika.45 This relational asset is difficult and slow to replicate by another organization that does not have such a history in a given community. This could make replication easier for large, established NGOs with a strong field presence, compared to smaller organizations or new initiatives.
- The need for initial investment. Setting up the physical infrastructure of the Hubs, as well as building the working capital needed to operate the loan and voucher system, requires potentially significant initial capital 45, which can constitute a significant barrier to entry.
- Strong sensitivity to the local context. The success of the model will crucially depend on its fine adaptation to the specific conditions of each environment: state of infrastructure (roads, energy, communication), dynamics of local markets, social and cultural norms, national and local regulatory framework, agro-climatic conditions, etc. 39 The success of an initiative in one country or region (such as digital VSLAs in Rwanda 41 or the dairy initiative in Uganda 17) does not guarantee its success elsewhere without rigorous adaptation.
- Availability of local skills. Finding and retaining qualified staff in social enterprise management, finance, commercial agronomy, etc., can be a challenge in some regions.6
- The need for strong local partnerships. The Hubs model relies on the ability to identify and collaborate effectively with local companies providing services (mechanization, processing) and to establish links with markets.45 The density and quality of this local economic fabric will vary considerably from one place to another.
KEY LESSONS FOR AFRICAN NGOS #
ForAfrika’s experience, although still being developed and validated on a large scale, offers several potential lessons for other African NGOs considering integrating social entrepreneurship into their strategy to strengthen their financial autonomy and impact:
- SE as a Step-by-Step Journey, Not a Disruption: ForAfrika’s approach suggests that social entrepreneurship can be viewed as a logical next step following traditional development programs, rather than as an entirely new and disconnected activity.45 This allows for capitalizing on achievements and supporting beneficiaries in a gradual transition. Recommendation: NGOs should assess the level of readiness of their beneficiaries (basic self-sufficiency achieved?) and the robustness of their own systems before embarking on complex SE initiatives requiring a business logic.
- The Importance of Integration and Strategic Alignment: Close alignment of SE activities with the organization’s core social mission is a key factor in maintaining coherence, maximizing synergistic impact, and preventing mission drift.45 Recommendation: Prioritize SE activities that directly reinforce or complement the NGO’s existing social objectives, rather than engaging in purely profit-making ventures unrelated to the mission.
- The Relevance of a Risk Reduction Approach: In rural African contexts, often marked by uncertainty and vulnerability, it is crucial to design SE models that integrate mechanisms to mitigate the risks faced by entrepreneurs (guaranteed market access, adequate financing, technical and managerial training).45 Recommendation: Integrate elements of “de-risking” into the design of SE initiatives, particularly during the start-up phases, to encourage participation and increase the chances of initial success.
- Essential Investment in Skills and Capacity: The transition to social entrepreneurship requires new skills within the NGO (business-oriented financial management, marketing, development of commercial partnerships) and sustained investment in capacity building of the local entrepreneurs supported.6 Recommendation: Budget and explicitly plan the development of human capacity (internal and external) as an essential and non-negotiable component of any SE strategy.
- The Need for Patience and a Long-Term Vision: The example of BRAC 11 and the still limited financial data of ForAfrika FASE 19 show that achieving significant financial autonomy through SE is a process that requires time, perseverance, and potentially significant investments. Financial returns may not be immediate. Recommendation: Adopt a long-term perspective, set realistic expectations in terms of timelines and financial returns, and focus initially on validating the model and measuring social impact.
- The Crucial Importance of Data and Impact Measurement: To effectively steer the ES strategy, adapt it based on results, demonstrate its value to stakeholders and attract diversified funding (including impact investments 48), it is essential to put in place robust monitoring, evaluation and learning systems.42 Recommendation: Integrate rigorous impact measurement (both social and financial) from the design phase of ES initiatives, and not just as an ex post evaluation.
- Exploring Diversified Sources of Funding for SE: Social enterprise funding should not be based solely on commercial revenues. It is relevant to actively explore other sources of capital specifically dedicated to SE, such as earmarked grants 80, impact investments 2, strategic partnerships with the private sector 7, or even some public funding where available.48 Recommendation: Develop a mixed and diversified funding strategy specifically to support the start-up and growth of social entrepreneurship activities.
It should be emphasized that these lessons from ForAfrika’s experience should be viewed with some caution. The FASE model, while promising and strategically well-positioned, is still relatively early in its large-scale deployment.19 Its sustained success and ability to generate significant financial and social impact at scale remain to be demonstrated over the long term. The most robust lessons will likely emerge in the coming years, as the Hubs mature and more comprehensive and longitudinal impact data become available.
CONCLUSION #
The in-depth analysis of the ForAfrika case offers valuable insights into the potential and complexities of using social entrepreneurship as a lever for financial autonomy for African NGOs. ForAfrika’s journey illustrates a deliberate strategic transition, driven by the inherent limitations of traditional funding models and a desire to deepen its impact by fostering the sustainable commercial viability of the communities it serves.6 The innovative model of Social Entrepreneurship Hubs (FASE), with its integrated, scalable approach and risk-reduction mechanisms, has clear theoretical potential to transform livelihoods, particularly in the agricultural sector.45
In terms of impact on financial autonomy, the FASE model clearly aims for revenue diversification and partial self-financing through profit reinvestment.45 However, assessment of the actual financial impact to date is limited by the lack of specific data available.19 Although ForAfrika’s overall revenue is growing, significant dependence on traditional donors remains a reality.6 Financial autonomy through SE therefore appears to be a long-term objective rather than an immediate reality for the organization.
The alignment between ForAfrika’s social entrepreneurship activities and its core development mission is a notable strength, likely to strengthen organizational coherence and social impact.45 However, implementing this ambitious strategy faces considerable challenges: mobilizing adequate capital for growth, developing the necessary skills internally and among entrepreneurs, managing the multiple risks inherent in the contexts of intervention, maintaining the delicate balance between social objectives and commercial imperatives, and navigating often restrictive institutional and infrastructural environments.6
ForAfrika’s experience, although ongoing, provides a valuable case study for the African NGO sector. It highlights the importance of a phased and integrated approach, strategic alignment, fine-tuned contextual adaptation, continued investment in human capacity, and the need for a long-term and patient vision. It also underscores the crucial role of rigorous impact measurement and the search for diversified funding to support these initiatives.
Ultimately, social entrepreneurship represents a promising but challenging path for African NGOs seeking sustainability and autonomy. The model developed by ForAfrika offers interesting avenues for reflection and innovation. Its lasting success and ability to be replicated will depend on its ability to overcome the operational and financial complexities inherent in its ambitions and to demonstrate, with supporting data, a measurable and transformative social and economic impact on a large scale.
Source of quotes