What programmes expect

We tend to think of the agent role in simple terms, perhaps something like this:

Treegrower → agent → wood processor.  

Or wood processor → agent → timber trader. 

We know from field research that producers are dissatisfied with the high cut taken by agents. On that basis, agents look like one of the key reasons producers are not getting a fair price for their trees. If they seem to be an unnecessary and exploitative link in the value chain, then it is logical to think of removing them, or replacing them with fairer mechanisms: producer organisations,  digital platforms, or contracts.    

What happens in practice

It helps to think about the question from the market side. On any give day, traders are placing orders for specific sizes, quantities and types of timber. How are you going to get the quantities you need. 

You know a guy who normally supplies you. Producer associations are often set up as part of development programmes to deliver these benefits. 

What's driving the gap?

This is a case for Micro Theory of Change, i.e. Theory of Change at the activity level (rather than project level) which 

Programme implications

This gap exists because most programmes are designed at too high a level of abstraction.
By Design uses micro–Theory of Change, user personas, and Cultural Theory–informed facilitation to surface and resolve exactly these blind spots at design stage.

See how these methods work →