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

  • 285 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
285
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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 hsome@snvworld.org Balma Yakubu Issaka balma32@yahoo.com
  • 3. 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
  • 4. What are Value Chains? • End market International Market • Vertical linkages • Horizontal linkages Global markets Domestic market • Supporting products & services • Business enabling environnement Export Wholesale Processing Supporting Products Services (finances, transport, training,etc) Producing Input supply 4
  • 5. IP to create a logic change 5
  • 6. What are Innovative plateforms? • Instruments that have emerged in response to growing body of “natural &/or traditionnal” relationship at local level • Culture / Spirituality Community (with various actors) set up relationship, developed tools, rooted in an understanding needs and willpower to engage Conservation and Sustainable Use gov‟t and other stakeholders to secure community wellbeing • Identify/Develop/adapt best fits to address a number of key challenges Natural Resources Territory 6
  • 7. IP an other MSP High power inequality Low power inequality Negotiation (at best) Dialogue 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
  • 8. 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 community d)Lack of willpower 8
  • 9. Positioning IP in multi-stakeholder processes Community internal ongoing dialogues on BCP researchers Mutistakeholders network traders processers R4D Whole saler Action Research Participatory approch program Producer group IP Internal stakeholders No collaboration (yet) as an MSP with external stakeholders Negotiation Ability to deal with power dynamics will reduce conflicts Collaboration External stakeholders MSP space to move from negotiation to dialogue Conflicts over various interest more often on the left side High power inequality Value chains more often on the right side Mediated power inequality as an MSP with external stakeholders IPDialogues Ability for joint learning 9 Engaging with ABS will improve dialogue and get community willpower improved with VCD & IP
  • 10. What is a community for the purposes of a IP?  Community members have to Shared activity be specialized in their activities  Each member has to focus on the relationship with others in the vertical line Collective decision making Shared values Community  Commununities have to share same values: gender issues, governance, equity, sustainability Common cause 10
  • 11. From the IP to the action research • How can communities Implementing, M&E Crop & livestocks’ subsector gived by V2 proposal (ILRI) (IP actors) be sure that:  their needs are V2 EFFECTS Programming at large scale level the best ones VC selection by the actors (IP) Subsector Analysis by a consultant (SNV) Beneficiaries relevant  their practices are Training on VCD by ILRI Learning alliances Commercially Viable solutions livestocks production Upscalling strategieS VC analysiS by actors (IP) SNV  the best fits can improve crops and VCD TRAINING Monitoring & Evaluation Upgrading strategies framework and planing SNV Monitoring & Evaluation Action Recherche INERA/ARI 11
  • 12. HOW V2 HAVE EXPERIMENT THIS MODEL OF IP 12
  • 13. 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
  • 14. 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?
  • 15. Role of the IP 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 facilitator Role of the IP Results Challenges Baseline characterizatio n and participatory inventory of RMS Value VCA & SWOT focusing on RMS; setting IP PRA Validation of VCA, identifying VC, defining strategies VC actors draft their strategies to adress their constraints • Time spent is more than planned Targeted RMS recommendati ons for different actors and contexts in mixed croplivestock agroecosystems Multistakehol der facilitation (MSP); Development of Action Research Protocol (ARP) Prioritizing & implementing activities:Drough t, soil fertility; animal feed in dry season; Animal disease & mortality •Shared understanding on the issues to be addressed and the modatility for implementation • Fund for inputs •Actors are implementing activities • Limited capacity of the IP to implement strategies • Market access • Land tenure issue • Access to technical services • Capacity to document 16
  • 17. Key Results Outputs Role of the facilitator Internal and external communic ation MSP, designing tools, follow up IP decision & activities Supplying inputs for ARP From all VC actors meeting to representativ es meeting Identifying needs, organizing workshops Needs on business plan, land law, negociation skills Capacity building Role of the IP Results •Actors are able to negociate with various stakeholders •Review & proposed modification of PAR activities •Clear strtategies to address tech. & institutional challenges outside PAR protocol Actors have recognized and articulated their capacity needs Challenges Legality & legitimity of the IP to discus with stakeholders & financial servicies; Cost of meetings; capcity of representatives to organise village meeting with others How to transfer knowledge to others in the community 17
  • 18. 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
  • 19. 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. 20