Post on 16-May-2015
1
« Présence Globale, Impact Local »
36 pays
SNV Siège
1970: La SNVs’installe auBurkina Faso
Innovation Platforms for Value Chain
Development: Experiences from Ghana and
Burkina Faso
Presented by:Hubert W. SOME hsome@snvworld.org
Balma Yakubu Issaka balma32@yahoo.com
SCIENCE WEEK
3-5 july2012
OUTLINE
1.Value chains Vs MSPs
2.What is an innovative platform?
3.Innovation Platforms & action research
4.Challenges of IP implementation
5.Postioning the Action Resaerch in the IP
6.Way forward
7.conclusion
3
What are Value Chains?
• End market
• Vertical linkages
• Horizontal linkages
• Supporting products
& services
• Business enabling
environnement
International Market
Domestic market
Export Wholesale
Processing
Input supply
Global markets
Producing
Supporting Products Services(finances, transport, training,etc)
4
IP to create a logic change
5
What are Innovative plateforms?
• Instruments that have emerged in
response to growing body of
“natural &/or traditionnal”
relationship at local level
• Community (with various actors)
set up relationship, developed tools,
rooted in an understanding needs
and willpower to engage gov’t and
other stakeholders to secure
community wellbeing
• Identify/Develop/adapt best fits to
address a number of key challenges
Conservation and
Sustainable Use
Culture / Spirituality
TerritoryNatural Resources
6
High power inequality
Low power inequality
IP an other MSP
DialogueNegotiation (at best)
MSPs in this context run into problems:- Difficult to find common
goal- Conflicts hard to
manage
MSPs in this context are suitable:- Common goal is present,
or is within reach- Ingredients for learning
among stakeholders are present
Facilitators at risk of becoming go-between factions; and take over roles of stakeholders
Facilitators can concentrate on supporting dialogue, learning, innovation
7
Challenges of implementation of the IP
a) Stakeholders are not convinced with the approach and are still in the old system b) The stakeholder have more demand out of communities capacities
c) Needs are not clearly defined and agreed in the communityd)Lack of willpower
8
Positioning IPin multi-stakeholder processes
Collaboration as an MSP with
external stakeholders
No collaboration (yet) as an MSP with external stakeholders
Participatory approch program
Conflicts over various interest
more often on the left side
Value chains more often on the right side
High power inequality
Mediated power
inequality
Producer group
Mutistakeholders network
processers
Engaging with ABS will improve dialogue and get community willpower improved with VCD &
IP
Ability to deal with power
dynamics will reduce conflicts
I P
traders
Negotiation IPDialogues
Whole saler
MSP space to move from negotiation to dialogue
researchersCommunity internal on-
going dialogues on
BCP
Internal stakeholders
External stakeholders
Ability for joint
learning
Action ResearchR4D
9
What is a community for the purposes of a IP?
Community
Shared activity
Shared values
Common cause
Collective
decision making
Community members have to
be specialized in their
activities
Each member has to focus on
the relationship with others in
the vertical line
Commununities have to share
same values: gender issues,
governance, equity,
sustainability
10
From the IP to
the action research
• How can communities
(IP actors) be sure
that:
their needs are
relevant
their practices are the
best ones
the best fits can
improve crops and
livestocks production
11
Crop & livestocks’ subsector gived by V2 proposal (ILRI)
Subsector Analysis by a consultant (SNV)
VC selection by the actors (IP)
VC analysiS by actors (IP)
Upgrading strategies framework and planing
Commercially Viable solutions
Upscalling strategieS
Learning alliances
Programming at large scale level
Implementing,M&E
V2 EFFECTS
Beneficiaries
Action Recherche INERA/ARI
VCD
SNV
SNV TRAINING
Training on VCD by ILRI
Monitoring & Evaluation
Monitoring & Evaluation
HOW V2 HAVE EXPERIMENT THIS MODEL OF IP
12
HOW TO ENSURE THAT IP FOR AR FACILITATES
ABS & ACTORS LEARNING
• What is the situation is V2:
The process
The outputs
The outcomes
The chalenges
• Way forward
13
Key Questions
How do we measure the performance of IPs and what factors influence this?
How do IPs affect the performance of VCs?
In which circumstances do IPs lead to more sustainable and equitable benefits for VC actors?
How do the context and crop-livestock species/systems affect the functioning of the IPs and consequently, the VCs?
What factors influence the sustainability/replicability of Ips?
What are the implications of the above on project design and implementation?
Which tools are affective for M&E of IPs and livestock VCs?
• IP1: Value chain analysis and initial analysis of constraints
• IP2: Further analysis of constraints with focus on rainwater
management and related strategies
• IP3(ARI): Development of Action Research Protocol
• IP4: Review of the process and development of action plan for the
season
Key Results
Outputs Role of the facilitator
Role of the IP
Results Challenges
Baseline characterization and participatory inventory of RMS
Value VCA & SWOT focusing on RMS; setting IPPRA
Validation of VCA, identifying VC, defining strategies
VC actors draft their strategies to adress their constraints
• Time spent is more than planned
• Limited capacity of the IP to implement strategies
Targeted RMS recommendations for different actors and contexts in mixed crop-livestock agro-ecosystems
Multistakeholder facilitation (MSP);Development of Action Research Protocol (ARP)
Prioritizing & implementing activities:Drought, soil fertility; animal feed in dry season; Animal disease & mortality
•Shared understanding on the issues to be addressed and the modatility for implementation
•Actors are implementing activities
• Fund for inputs
• Market access
• Land tenure issue
• Access to technical services
• Capacity to document
16
Key Results
Outputs Role of the
facilitator
Role of the IP
Results Challenges
Internal and external communication
MSP, designing tools, follow up IP decision & activitiesSupplying inputs for ARP
From all VC actors meeting to representatives meeting
•Actors are able to negociate with various stakeholders
•Review & proposed modification of PAR activities
•Clear strtategies to address tech. & institutional challenges outside PAR protocol
Legality & legitimity of the IP to discus with stakeholders & financial servicies;
Cost of meetings; capcity of representatives to organise village meeting with others
Capacity building
Identifying needs, organizing workshops
Needs on business plan, land law, negociation skills
Actors have recognized and articulated their capacity needs
How to transfer knowledge to others in the community
17
Conclusion
• IP provides a way forwards to improved agricultural production &
livelihood through improve stakeholder participation in action
research
• Translating IP decisions into VC outcomes
• Constraints along the VC are largely institutional rather than
technical
• IP has enhanced collaboration among actors
• High expectation among IP participants
• Sustainability
Active farmer participation vs Institutional ‘sluggishness’
Organizational form: formal or informal
WAY FORWARD
• The upcoming learning alliance is a means to resolving some of
the capacity challenges
• Analyse and address:
Actor willingness to participate in IP
Lack of capacity among actors in terms of means, knowledge,
behaviour, and ability
• Adopt strategies to deal with the high expectation generated by
the project
19
20