Validating the Uganda Pig Value Chain Impact
Pathway(s)
Michael Kidoido
Uganda Smallholder Pigs Value Chain Impact
Pathway...
Background
• The Livestock and Fish CG Research Program is
implemented by a 4 CG center partnership:
 ILRI, CIAT, ICARDA,...
• However the program is:
 Complicated (multi-level and multi-site)
 Complex (emergent outcomes)
• Therefore:
Not easy ...
• Are result chains that represent the various steps that
lead to having impact at scale, through successive stages
of out...
Why develop Impact Pathways?
• To demonstrate program rationale
• To guide program planning
• To provide a foundation for ...
• Research information, new technologies and
practices
• New approaches for putting research into action
 Capacity develo...
• Also include research outcomes
 Change in knowledge, awareness and skills
 Change in capacity of beneficiaries and int...
• New policies and policy instruments
• New or better functioning institutions
(formal or informal)
 Functional seed dist...
• Increase productivity for beneficiaries
• Improved distribution of opportunities, income,
food security and nutrition be...
• Enhanced livelihoods in target domain across
the program
 Increased food security
 Reduced rural poverty
 Reduced und...
Generic program Impact Pathway(s)
Livestock and Fish program Intermediate
Development outcomes (IDOs)
 Program’s direct benefits and enabling environment
o...
1. Increased livestock and fish productivity in small-
scale production systems for the target
commodities.
2. Increased q...
4. Increased consumption of the target commodity
responsible for filling a larger share of the nutrient gap
for the poor, ...
Theory of change (TOC)
• Explicit identification of the ways by which change is expected to occur from
output to outcome a...
Set of Assumptions for the value chain IP
• Addressing whole value chain will improve relevance,
uptake and effectiveness ...
• Pro-poor value chains can compete and generate
sufficient incentives to promote investment in
intensification.
• The poo...
• Focusing on a few value chains might limit geographical
spread of research benefits.
• Social inequalities bar women and...
Program M&E/IA next steps
• Finalize ToC/IP at program and value chain/country
levels
– develop IP narratives from value c...
Objectives of the workshop
 Communicate and validate the program’s intervention
logic in the development of the fish valu...
CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR Research
P...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Validating the Uganda Pig Value Chain Impact Pathway(s)

2,143 views
1,999 views

Published on

Presented by Michael Kidoido at the Uganda Smallholder Pigs Value Chain Impact Pathways Workshop, Kampala, Uganda, 27-28 June 2013

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,143
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,507
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Validating the Uganda Pig Value Chain Impact Pathway(s)

  1. 1. Validating the Uganda Pig Value Chain Impact Pathway(s) Michael Kidoido Uganda Smallholder Pigs Value Chain Impact Pathways Workshop Kampala, Uganda, 27-28 June 2013
  2. 2. Background • The Livestock and Fish CG Research Program is implemented by a 4 CG center partnership:  ILRI, CIAT, ICARDA, and WorldFish • It works in 9 well selected value chains worldwide:  Pig (Uganda and Vietnam), dairy (Tanzania and India) and dual purpose cattle (Nicaragua), small ruminants (Ethiopia and Mali), and fish (Egypt and Bangladesh) • Program’s approach:  Delivering impact through improving value chain performance  Creating International Public Goods (IPGs)- internationally accessible knowledge
  3. 3. • However the program is:  Complicated (multi-level and multi-site)  Complex (emergent outcomes) • Therefore: Not easy to predict whether the planned interventions will deliver the benefits as predicted. Not sure whether value chain actors will put to use the interventions to improve themselves. • Thus constructing well validated impact will improve program’s probability of achieving impact.
  4. 4. • Are result chains that represent the various steps that lead to having impact at scale, through successive stages of outcomes, as a result of adoption and use of outputs by different actor types at different stages • IPs can be represented by narratives or flow diagrams • But most frequently as graphics. Development Outcomes Impact Research Outputs Research Outcomes Impact Pathways (IPs)
  5. 5. Why develop Impact Pathways? • To demonstrate program rationale • To guide program planning • To provide a foundation for program Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (ME&L) • To provide impact hypotheses for ex- post Impact Assessment (IA)
  6. 6. • Research information, new technologies and practices • New approaches for putting research into action  Capacity development  Professional development courses  On the job trainings and activities • Engagement events and networks  Communication campaigns  Innovative platforms Research outputs Could be information and understanding
  7. 7. • Also include research outcomes  Change in knowledge, awareness and skills  Change in capacity of beneficiaries and intermediaries Capacity change outcomes Behavioral change outcomes • Change in actual practices of beneficiaries and “next users”  Land use planners using GIS maps  Smallholders adopt improved crop varieties  NARES approach to soil management adapted to local conditions
  8. 8. • New policies and policy instruments • New or better functioning institutions (formal or informal)  Functional seed distribution system  Increased value chain productivity  Policies for improved use of natural resources adopted Enabling environment outcomes
  9. 9. • Increase productivity for beneficiaries • Improved distribution of opportunities, income, food security and nutrition benefits to the target group • Reduced degradation of natural resources • Examples:  Increased income for smallholder farmers from adopting improved varieties  Increased consumption of biofortified foods  Reduced loss of biodiversity and genetic resources Direct benefits outcomes
  10. 10. • Enhanced livelihoods in target domain across the program  Increased food security  Reduced rural poverty  Reduced under nutrition  Enhanced sustainability of natural resources in target domain across program Program impacts
  11. 11. Generic program Impact Pathway(s)
  12. 12. Livestock and Fish program Intermediate Development outcomes (IDOs)  Program’s direct benefits and enabling environment outcomes  IDOs articulate in a concise way with simple language what our program aims to deliver during it’s lifetime  IDO’s help inform and design our research-for-development agenda  IDOs help build our ‘Results Strategy Framework’ and capture where our impact pathways are expected to take us to  IDOs provide a framework for holding us accountable on our hypotheses and our promises to deliver at scale  IDOs will be used to measure our performance, successes and failures (and thus help us reflect and learn as we progress)
  13. 13. 1. Increased livestock and fish productivity in small- scale production systems for the target commodities. 2. Increased quantity and improved quality of the target commodity supplied from the target small-scale production and marketing systems. 3. Increased employment and income for low- income actors in the target value chains, with an increased share of employment for and income controlled by low-income women.
  14. 14. 4. Increased consumption of the target commodity responsible for filling a larger share of the nutrient gap for the poor, particularly for nutritionally vulnerable populations (women of reproductive age and young children). 5. Lower environment impacts per unit of commodity produced in the target value chains. 6. Policies (including investments) support the development of small-scale production and marketing systems, and seek to increase the participation of women within these value chains.
  15. 15. Theory of change (TOC) • Explicit identification of the ways by which change is expected to occur from output to outcome and impact. • The TOC questions the assumptions about causality underlying the relationships between outputs, outcomes and impact. Development Outcomes Impact Research Outputs Research Outcomes Description of causal mechanism, with evidence Description of causal mechanism, with evidence Description of causal mechanism, with evidence
  16. 16. Set of Assumptions for the value chain IP • Addressing whole value chain will improve relevance, uptake and effectiveness of innovations. • Focus and targeting will increase efficiency and the probability of achieving proof at scale. • Implementation of demand-driven innovations in the right value chains with the right partners will accelerate the program’s progress towards achieving outcomes and impact. • A significant number of pre-commercial smallholders can become market-oriented and intensify production sustainably.
  17. 17. • Pro-poor value chains can compete and generate sufficient incentives to promote investment in intensification. • The poor rely on animal-source food produced locally by smallholders and from less formal marketing channels. • The poor will consume more ASF if availability, access and affordability of products improve from those systems. • Increased and equitable consumption of ASF will improve nutrition and health. Cont.…….Assumptions
  18. 18. • Focusing on a few value chains might limit geographical spread of research benefits. • Social inequalities bar women and other marginalized groups from taking up innovations, limiting achievement of outcomes at scale. • High transaction costs of managing a complex network of partnerships. • Program approaches may not attract investment for research and development. • Partners may not be willing or have the interest to take up program interventions • Income and gender inequalities are exacerbated due to program implementation. Set of risks for the value chain IP
  19. 19. Program M&E/IA next steps • Finalize ToC/IP at program and value chain/country levels – develop IP narratives from value chain IP workshops • Develop program and project specific M&E/IA frameworks on the basis of well defined value chains Impact Pathways • Support ongoing evaluations to keep validating the Theory of change
  20. 20. Objectives of the workshop  Communicate and validate the program’s intervention logic in the development of the fish value chain, clearly identifying the roles of different actors in the value chain.  Question and clarify the program’s potential for achieving impact on the intended beneficiaries and map out the key risks and assumptions of the program.  Begin to lay the building blocks for designing a framework for subsequent monitoring, evaluating and learning of the program.
  21. 21. CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish livestockfish.cgiar.org

×