Innovation Platforms for Value Chain Development: Experiences from Ghana and Burkina Faso

Innovation Platforms for Value Chain Development: Experiences from Ghana and Burkina Faso

• 1.
  « Présence Globale,Impact Local » 36 pays SNV Siège 1970: La SNV s’installe au Burkina Faso 1
• 2.
  SCIENCE WEEK 3-5 july2012 Innovation Platforms for Value Chain Development: Experiences from Ghana and Burkina Faso Presented by: Hubert W. SOME [email protected] Balma Yakubu Issaka [email protected]
• 3.
  OUTLINE 1.Value chains VsMSPs 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
• 4.
  What are ValueChains? • End market International Market • Vertical linkages Global markets • Horizontal linkages • Supporting products Domestic market & services • Business enabling Export Wholesale environnement Processing Supporting Products Services (finances, transport, training,etc) Producing Input supply 4
• 5.
  IP to createa logic change 5
• 6.
  What are Innovativeplateforms? • Instruments that have emerged in response to growing body of “natural &/or traditionnal” relationship at local level Culture / • Community (with various actors) Spirituality set up relationship, developed tools, rooted in an understanding needs and willpower to engage Conservation gov‟t and other stakeholders to and secure community wellbeing Sustainable Use • Identify/Develop/adapt best fits to Natural Territory Resources address a number of key challenges 6
• 7.
  IP an otherMSP High power Low power inequality inequality Negotiation (at best) Dialogue MSPs in this context run MSPs in this context are into problems: suitable: - Difficult to find common - Common goal is present, goal or is within reach - Conflicts hard to - Ingredients for learning manage among stakeholders are present Facilitators at risk of becoming go-between Facilitators can concentrate factions; and take over on supporting dialogue, roles of stakeholders learning, innovation 7
• 8.
  Challenges of implementationof 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 community d)Lack of willpower 8
• 9.
  Positioning IP in multi-stakeholder processes Mutistakeholders network Community researchers internal on- traders R4D Action Research going processers Whole saler dialogues on IP BCP Participatory approch program Producer group Internal stakeholders No collaboration External stakeholders Collaboration (yet) as an MSP with as an MSP with external stakeholders MSP space to move from negotiation to external dialogue stakeholders Negotiation IPDialogues Conflicts over Value chains Ability to deal various interest more often on with power more often on the Ability for the right side dynamics will left side joint reduce conflicts Mediated learning High power power inequality inequality 9 Engaging with ABS will improve dialogue and get community willpower improved with VCD & IP
• 10.
  What is acommunity for the purposes of a IP?  Community members have to be specialized in their Shared activity activities  Each member has to focus on Collective Shared the relationship with others in decision values making the vertical line Community  Commununities have to share same values: gender issues, governance, equity, su Common stainability cause 10
• 11.
  From the IPto the action research Implementing, Training on M&E Crop & livestocks’ VCD by ILRI • How can communities subsector gived by V2 VC selection by proposal (ILRI) (IP actors) be sure the actors (IP) that: Subsector Analysis by Programming at V2 EFFECTS a consultant (SNV)  their needs are large scale level VCD VC analysiS by actors (IP) relevant Beneficiaries SNV Monitoring &  their practices are Learning Evaluation alliances Commercially the best ones Viable solutions Upgrading strategies  the best fits can framework and planing Upscalling improve crops and strategieS TRAINING livestocks production SNV Monitoring & Evaluation Action Recherche INERA/ARI 11
• 12.
  HOW V2 HAVEEXPERIMENT THIS MODEL OF IP 12
• 13.
  HOW TO ENSURETHAT IP FOR AR FACILITATES ABS & ACTORS LEARNING • What is the situation is V2:  The process  The outputs  The outcomes  The chalenges • Way forward 13
• 14.
  Key Questions  Howdo 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?
• 15.
  Role of theIP in Prioritizing the Action Research Issues • 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
• 16.
  Key Results Outputs Role of the Role of the Results Challenges facilitator IP Baseline Value VCA & Validation of VC actors draft • Time spent is more characterizatio SWOT VCA, identifying their strategies to than planned n and focusing on VC, defining adress their participatory RMS; setting strategies constraints • Limited capacity of inventory of IP the IP to implement RMS PRA strategies Targeted RMS Multistakehol Prioritizing & •Shared • Fund for inputs recommendati der facilitation implementing understanding on ons for (MSP); activities:Drough the issues to be • Market access different Development t, soil fertility; addressed and actors and of Action animal feed in the modatility for • Land tenure issue contexts in Research dry season; implementation mixed crop- Protocol Animal disease & • Access to technical livestock agro- (ARP) mortality •Actors are services ecosystems implementing activities • Capacity to document 16
• 17.
  Key Results Outputs Role of Role of Results Challenges the the IP facilitator Internal MSP, From all VC •Actors are able to Legality & legitimity of and designing actors negociate with various the IP to discus with external tools, follow meeting to stakeholders stakeholders & communic up IP representativ financial servicies; ation decision & es meeting •Review & proposed activities modification of PAR Cost of meetings; Supplying activities capcity of inputs for representatives to ARP •Clear strtategies to organise village address tech. & meeting with others institutional challenges outside PAR protocol Capacity Identifying Needs on Actors have recognized How to transfer building needs, business and articulated their knowledge to others organizing plan, land capacity needs in the community workshops law, negociation skills 17
• 18.
  Conclusion • IP providesa 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
• 19.
  WAY FORWARD • Theupcoming 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.
  20