Underwrite on operating evidence, not on a self-reported spreadsheet.
For the capital financing African agriculture — and the reporting obligations attached to it.
Agricultural credit in this market fails on information long before it fails on risk. The borrower is thin-file by definition: no audited accounts, no collateral a bank will accept, no repayment history because nobody ever recorded the last four seasons of input advances they settled in full. The result is that due diligence costs more than the loan earns, and the capital goes somewhere easier.
FuroField does not lend and does not price risk. It is the system of record underneath the schemes and farms you finance, so the evidence you need — per-grower repayment behaviour, cost and margin per hectare, plot geometry, worker registers and grievance handling — accumulates as a by-product of operations rather than being assembled for you at reporting time.
Diligence and monitoring cost more than the ticket justifies
Every appraisal starts from zero because the borrower's operating history was never captured in a form anyone else can read. Monitoring is worse: portfolio reporting arrives quarterly, self-reported, in whatever shape each programme happens to use, and E&S reporting obligations land on organisations with no structured evidence to draw on.
- Thin-file borrowers with no repayment history and no acceptable collateral
- Appraisal cost per grower that swamps the margin on a small ticket
- Portfolio monitoring dependent on self-reported figures with no underlying record
- E&S safeguard obligations reported from narrative rather than from evidence
From first record to something you can act on
Finance schemes that keep records
The aggregator or grower runs FuroField for their own operational reasons. Registers, advances, deliveries and costs are captured because the business needs them, which is the only reason data stays honest.
Read the ledger rather than the narrative
Every advance carries a reference, a value and a status; every delivery nets against it. Repayment behaviour is a record with a history, not a claim in a proposal.
Monitor on operating data
Credit outstanding, delivered value, amount netted, cost and margin per hectare — current at any moment rather than reconstructed for a quarterly pack.
Draw safeguard evidence from operations
Worker register, grievance mechanism and community commitments are live capability. E&S reporting comes out of the same records rather than a parallel exercise at year end.
In detail
Repayment history for thin-file borrowers
A per-grower ledger of advances, deliveries and settlements builds season on season — the asset that eventually makes a smallholder bankable at a sane rate.
Lower cost of diligence per grower
Verified identity, GPS plot and area for each borrower, held in a register rather than rebuilt from paper for every appraisal.
Per-hectare economics
Cost and margin tied to measured area and to specific crop cycles, in the unit both an agronomist and a credit committee can argue about.
Portfolio view across programmes
Credit outstanding, delivered value and netted amount by scheme and by cohort, on a consistent basis across every programme you finance.
E&S safeguard evidence
Worker registers, a functioning grievance mechanism and community commitments — the material a development-finance E&S team asks for, kept as records rather than assertions.
Plot geometry for land-use screening
Boundaries captured at enrolment support deforestation due-diligence and land-use questions on the plots actually being financed.
Built for these operations
About investors & lenders
Does FuroField score credit or make lending decisions?
No. It is the record layer. Scoring, pricing and the decision stay with you — what changes is that the inputs to that decision are operating records with a history behind them instead of a form filled in for the application.
How do we get data out for our own models and reporting?
Per-grower ledgers and scheme positions export, and read-only service-account access exists for pulling data into your own systems. Access is tenant-scoped and permissioned; the borrower controls what a financier can see.
Why would a borrower let us see their operating data?
Because the alternative is a higher rate or no facility at all. Growers and aggregators adopt the platform for operational reasons first; sharing a verifiable ledger with a lender is what turns that record-keeping into cheaper capital.
How reliable is self-captured field data?
It is honest to say no platform makes field data true. What FuroField does is make it harder to be casually wrong — area derives from mapped geometry rather than being typed, advances and deliveries reconcile against each other, and every grower carries a unique reference so duplicates surface.
Bring your fields online this season
Start free on up to 10 hectares — no card. Scale by the hectare as your operation grows.