Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Reviewing the evidence for participation and the ‘how’<br />Yvonne Pinto<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
This is a second chance for agriculture<br />Renewed focus on agricultural development<br />Greater resources to initiativ...
Farmer involvement in M&E: <br />Farmer Nowhere<br />“Current M&E practice tends to provide good accountability to”<br />n...
What would partnership with farmers look like?<br />Shared goals <br />Cooperative pooling of talents<br />Mutual responsi...
Shared Goals<br />A mixed methods evaluation of a participatory soil conservation project in 41 communities in Honduras <b...
Cooperative Pooling of Talents<br />A systematic review of 121 diverse rural water projects in Asia, Africa and Latin Amer...
Mutual Responsibility<br />Randomised control trial of community-based monitoring of public primary health care providers ...
Shared Gains and Risks<br />A study of collaborative rice breeding in Nepal <br />Varieties selected by farmers during on-...
Why don’t we see more partnerships with farmers?<br /><ul><li>Value added: not visible enough, despite studies
Practicality: can it work in real time?
Incentives: ground-truthing hurts and career advancement is not dependent on it
Power: we don’t have to  -- “grace and favour”
Trust: “The poor man who enters into a partnership with one who is rich makes a risky venture”Titus Maccius Plautus</li></...
Farmer partnerships are vital to fix the broken feedback loop<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Beyond Scaling Up: Reviewing the evidence

524

Published on

This presentation was given at the 'Beyond Scaling Up: Pathways to Universal Access' workshop which was held at the Institute of Development Studies, Brighton on the 24-25 May, 2010. This event was co-sponsored by the Future Health Systems Research Programme Consortium and the STEPS Centre. Pinto presented the work of Aline on agricultural measurement issues.

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
524
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Beyond Scaling Up: Reviewing the evidence"

  1. 1. Reviewing the evidence for participation and the ‘how’<br />Yvonne Pinto<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  2. 2. This is a second chance for agriculture<br />Renewed focus on agricultural development<br />Greater resources to initiatives that aim to make a difference to poor farmers’ lives<br />“The next Green Revolution ....must be guided by small-holder farmers, adapted to local circumstances, and sustainable for the economy and the environment”Bill Gates, World Food Prize speech. October 2009. <br />But, are we being guided by smallholder farmers?<br />M&E is the key way of guiding agricultural resources so that they achieve impact<br />But there are limitations<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  3. 3. Farmer involvement in M&E: <br />Farmer Nowhere<br />“Current M&E practice tends to provide good accountability to”<br />n=171<br />ALINe stakeholder survey. Lindstrom and Ponsford 2009<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  4. 4. What would partnership with farmers look like?<br />Shared goals <br />Cooperative pooling of talents<br />Mutual responsibility<br />Shared gains and risks <br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  5. 5. Shared Goals<br />A mixed methods evaluation of a participatory soil conservation project in 41 communities in Honduras <br />Participation led to changes in types of technologies tested<br />Participating farmers were more likely to innovate due to intervention<br />This led to increased adoption and higher yields (at least x3 for vast majority)<br />The cost of inputs per hectare under participatory conservation was $208. Similar projects in region without participatory methods recorded costs of at least $2000 per hectare<br />Johnson, N. L.; Lilja, N. and Ashby, J.A. (2003) Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research’, Agricultural Systems 78, pp 287–306<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  6. 6. Cooperative Pooling of Talents<br />A systematic review of 121 diverse rural water projects in Asia, Africa and Latin America<br />Indicators examined: percentage of water systems in good condition, percentage of target population reached and value of benefits<br />Strong statistical evidence: a 10 per cent increase in participation of the rural poor in these projects resulted in a 2 per cent increase in overall performance<br />Isham, J.; Narayan, D. and Pritchett, L. (1994) Does participation improve project performance : establishing causality with subjective data, Policy Research Working Paper Series 1357, The World Bank<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  7. 7. Mutual Responsibility<br />Randomised control trial of community-based monitoring of public primary health care providers in Uganda<br />Citizen report cards reduced child mortality by 33 per cent<br />The study documents large increases in utilisation and improved health outcomes<br />Cost per child death averted was $300, well below the average of $887 for 23 other interventions.<br />Björkman, M and Svensson, J. (2009) 'Power to the People: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment on Community Based Monitoring in Uganda’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 124: 2, pp 735–69<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  8. 8. Shared Gains and Risks<br />A study of collaborative rice breeding in Nepal <br />Varieties selected by farmers during on-farm trials had superior combinations of yield and maturity compared to the breeders‘ selections<br />Varieties spread from farmer to farmer without the need for intervention from scientists<br />Source: Gyawali, S., Sunwar, S., Subedi, M., Tripathi, M., Joshi, K.D. and Witcombe, J.R. (2007) 'Collaborative breeding with farmers can be effective', Field Crops Research, Vol. 101:1, pp 88-95<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  9. 9. Why don’t we see more partnerships with farmers?<br /><ul><li>Value added: not visible enough, despite studies
  10. 10. Practicality: can it work in real time?
  11. 11. Incentives: ground-truthing hurts and career advancement is not dependent on it
  12. 12. Power: we don’t have to -- “grace and favour”
  13. 13. Trust: “The poor man who enters into a partnership with one who is rich makes a risky venture”Titus Maccius Plautus</li></ul>www.aline.org.uk<br />
  14. 14. Farmer partnerships are vital to fix the broken feedback loop<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  15. 15. ALINe: people-centred performance measurement systems<br />Research on agricultural measurement issues<br />Specialist advice on systematic farmer feedback systems<br />Work with innovators in the sector through the Farmer Voice Initiative to learn from their experiences, share good practice <br />Pilot and evaluate new approaches to farmer feedback<br />Builds on work done by CIAT, ILAC, Farmer First Revisited and those outside of agriculture, including private sector<br />www.alineplanning.org<br />
  16. 16. Deja Vu All Over Again?<br />Now more evidence that participation can add value <br />New approaches developed —outcome mapping, participatory impact pathways<br />New IC technologies stimulate practical methods for direct feedback<br />Agriculture will not get a third chance for a long time—this time around it has to demonstrate impact on people<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  17. 17. But, donors need to “initiate discomfort”<br />True leadership is the installing of systems that might cause future discomfort in support of the greater good<br />Feedback systems will improve<br />Client accountability<br />Advocacy<br />Learning<br />Outcomes<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  18. 18. We need more people-centredperformance measurement<br />A meaningful partnership with farmers<br />Between “Farmer First” and “Farmer Nowhere”<br />Food security and nutrition<br />www.aline.org.uk<br />
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×