Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing Agricultural Knowledge for the African Great Lakes Region

Ad

Walking the
                                Impact Pathway:
                             The     CIALCA Experience       i...

Ad

CIALCA: realizing the „D‟ in „R4D‟
Goal: delivery of science-based agricultural
knowledge to farming households in mandate...

Ad

Milestones
Active impact pathways, involving all stakeholders
along the entire value chain, are leading to active
evaluati...

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Check these out next

1 of 30 Ad
1 of 30 Ad

van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing Agricultural Knowledge for the African Great Lakes Region

Presentation delivered at the CIALCA international conference 'Challenges and Opportunities to the agricultural intensification of the humid highland systems of sub-Saharan Africa'. Kigali, Rwanda, October 24-27 2011.

Presentation delivered at the CIALCA international conference 'Challenges and Opportunities to the agricultural intensification of the humid highland systems of sub-Saharan Africa'. Kigali, Rwanda, October 24-27 2011.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing Agricultural Knowledge for the African Great Lakes Region

Advertisement
Advertisement

van Schagen - Walking the impact pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing Agricultural Knowledge for the African Great Lakes Region

  1. 1. Walking the Impact Pathway: The CIALCA Experience in Mobilizing Agricultural Knowledge for the African Great Lakes Region VAN SCHAGEN| NJUKWE | PAUL | SENGELE | MAZIBO | BLOMME | VANLAUWE | VAN ASTEN
  2. 2. CIALCA: realizing the „D‟ in „R4D‟ Goal: delivery of science-based agricultural knowledge to farming households in mandate areas Impact orientation: direct and measureable change in farmer livelihoods attributable to our research and development intervention Impact at scale: Mandate areas across the 3 countries comprise 8.5 million people and we expect positive impacts on at least 50,000 households
  3. 3. Milestones Active impact pathways, involving all stakeholders along the entire value chain, are leading to active evaluation and dissemination of CIALCA related technologies and information In the CIALCA intervention areas: By 2012 at least 25% of the population of the mandate areas is aware of CIALCA-related activities and at least 5% of that population is actively seeking access to knowledge and technologies promoted by CIALCA
  4. 4. Conceptualizing „knowledge‟ Knowledge is: „Effective action in the domain of existence‟ Knowledge ≠ Information Information does not lead to action unless it is within the „domain of existence‟ of the holder. Example 1: Training farmers on how to fly a 747 Jumbo jet is not knowledge, because it is not actionable and irrelevant. Example 2: „Apply fungicide‟ – could be outside the domain of existence if it is not available, or far too
  5. 5. A cognitive model of change Learning: developing perception to recognize threats and opportunities and take action accordingly Innovating: acting in relation to threats and opportunities in a given domain of Diagram adapted from: Jiggins existence and Röling, 1999)
  6. 6. From knowledge(?) to impact(?): the old way Classical technology transfer by „science push‟. Linear transfer of standardized technology, farmers are passive recipients. Farmer to farmer diffusion was assumed to occur organically. „Hard system‟ and technology driven. This approach does not work well in risky, heterogeneous systems and agro-ecologies (GR in Asia worked better than in sub-Saharan Africa) Serious equity and gender concerns Models: ToT, T&V extension
  7. 7. From knowledge to impact: the new way Recognition of the need for feedback from farmers in terms of priorities and preferences, some consideration given to farmers own knowledge. Both „hard‟ and „soft‟ systems approaches. Places more emphasis on participatory, multi- stakeholder, inter- and trans-disciplinary, and client- driven research agendas. „Bottom up‟. More equity- and gender-sensitive Models: AKIS, FFS, PBB
  8. 8. Evolution of the „new way‟: agricultural innovation systems Contemporary paradigm for conceptualizing and organizing AR4D interventions Strong recognition of system interdependencies, heterogeneity of actors, multiplicity of „knowledges‟ Emphasis on institutions, systems, platforms and learning In an AIS, innovation as an emergent property From CIALCA as R4D to RinD: we are embedded in the AIS From technologies to innovations
  9. 9. Impact Pathways Definition: the causal links by way research achieves its intended impact An intentional strategy for focusing on high-impact interventions. Much more thought-out than simple project logic (objectives activities outputs outcomes). Understanding how impact is reached becomes an essential element in research design (ie. pathways elucidated and built-in at project inception!) The CIALCA impact pathways aim to bridge research and development by establishing operational interfaces between stakeholders.
  10. 10. Impact Pathways: CIALCA action sites Source: Briones et al., 2004
  11. 11. Impact Pathways: Satellite sites Satellite sites are used to evaluate best-bet options, (developed in the action sites), under leadership of development partners. This approach is mainly an interaction between CIALCA, outscaling partners and government extension. CIALCA outreach places strong emphasis on partnerships with development organizations and farmer associations. Several hundred established partnerships to date. Assumptions: • Partners have interest, the resources and the will to out-scale improved technologies; • Partnership with development organizations is an effective strategy for reaching out to many thousands, rapidly and cost effectively; • Farmer organizers have the capacity and the commitment to catalyzing horizontal dissemination at the grassroots level.
  12. 12. Impact Pathways: wider mandate area Autonomous diffusion of CIALCA innovations is assumed to happen organically beyond action and satellite sites Supported by mass-media such as radio and television programming where possible, plus possible reach from public extension and „leakage‟ from development partners (NGOs, CBOs) applying our innovations beyond AS/SS. Difficult to estimate potential impact ex-ante (what is the rate of grassroots diffusion, to what extent are trained farmer‟s associations etc. captive audiences?)
  13. 13. “…at least 25% of the population of the mandate areas is aware of CIALCA-related activities” % MANDATE AREA
  14. 14. “…at least 5% of that population is actively seeking access to knowledge and technologies promoted by CIALCA” % MANDATE AREA
  15. 15. Time and the „adoption‟ curve: where are we? 100% ? Impact assessment +/- Adoption Time: Early adopters Late adopters Technology adaptation
  16. 16. Impact Pathway: BXW in Burundi In November 2010, BXW disease officially reported to be present in two provinces in Burundi. Comite National de LutteContre les Maladies et Ravageurs des Plantes (under MINAGRI) called a meeting of development stakeholders in February 2011, nationwide BXW survey recommended. National stakeholder platform established (MINAGRI, ISABU, CIALCA, ASARECA, FAO, CRS) National awareness raising campaign developed, CIALCA and FAO take the lead. Adapted BXW factsheet developed by CIALCA and translated, disseminated to all (3000+) community-level government extension agents across the country. Six awareness-raising radio messages have been developed and been aired multiple times for seven weeks on 5 radio stations with national coverage. CIALCA BXW video has been adapted and translated, and is being broadcast on two TV channels, including RNTB. Impact remains to be seen…
  17. 17. Impact pathway: Adoption of ISFM through participatory on farm trials Researcher-designed, farmer-managed ISFM adaptation trials in SK. The aim was to increase farmer understanding and acceptance of the ISFM technologies and collect data across a wide range of agro-ecological/socio-economic zones. Farmers were provided with a trial package (inputs, a trial protocol, and a field data book). Facilitation by CIALCA, NGO agronomists and farmer technical advisors assist in trial installation, management and data collection Result: 85% of farmers happy with training received. 87% of farmers received acceptable or good facilitation. Significant learning about ISFM by farmers. Post-trial adoption rates were relatively low! “ISFM technologies could match better to their realities” Type III trials (ie. farmer designed – farmer managed) could help in further adapting the ISFM technologies to the farmers‟ needs and constraints to reach higher impact.
  18. 18. Communication channels and products CIALCA Knowledge Resource Centre established late 2010 to support the activation of impact pathways and develop and package adapted, partner-specific resource materials. Currently available resources include: • Factsheets on banana disease mitigation and control and good cultural practice (En, Fr, Sw, Kir, Kin) • Videos on best practices for cultivation and disease management • Recipe books • Radio resources • Website with access to many of the above
  19. 19. How the pathway + channel shapes the impact Direct vs. intermediaries (relatively little awareness of CIALCA through NGOs and extension) Length of the pathway – possible risk of message „corruption‟ especially with complex innovations. Higher risk with farmer-farmer dissemination? Intensity: how often is the receiver exposed to a particular message?
  20. 20. Characteristics of various communication channels
  21. 21. Challenges for outscalingsupported by ICT4D Digital divide: the fasted broadband connection available in Burundi is 1/10 the speed of the slowest connection in Europe, „value‟ (cost x speed) easily 1000 times worse. Rural telco reliability can be poor, unreliable network availability ICT4D often focuses too much on hardware and technology, whereas the more pressing challenge is innovative software and content, and a huge capacity gap in using and and exchanging information. Example: For those who are already connected, email barely entrenched as communication channel and online searching and website access low. Language – Still a big challenge. Difficult to support more than one languages properly and cost-effectively
  22. 22. Typical geographical distribution of website visitors
  23. 23. Effective impact pathways: downstream challenges Level of education Geographical distance and dispersion Literacy Contact with extension agent
  24. 24. Challenge: Dealing with increasing knowledge complexity More complexity would entail farmer training and facilitation to scale accordingly However not likely not to be linear (probably entailing a shift from single-loop to double-loop learning) But: Triple-S rule of extension messages How to reconcile with (potentially) increasing scientific complexity?
  25. 25. Opportunities: Dealing with increasing knowledge complexity Standard extension models provide adapted solutions to established system challenges. It does not (normally) stimulate farmer enquiry, self-discovery or farmer understanding and hence learning. We could start explicitly emphasizing experiential learning with farmers (self and group) and also consider the „WHY‟ (not just the how!) Caveat: It will take time for extension specialists to „relearn‟ their profession and train in facilitation techniques, where the objective is to collectively learn rather than to „teach‟. Better identify how our science can augment local knowledge or capacities. Outscaling: Trained communities can serve as knowledge hubs and thus help to out-scale to surrounding villages.
  26. 26. Recommendations Planning of impact pathways are absolutely integral to project design and implementation. They must be embedded and institutionalized ex-ante. We could adopt Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis (PIPA) as a suitable tool. A way of working with stakeholders to determine likely avenues for change.
  27. 27. PIPA
  28. 28. Recommendations II Going forward, it would bode well for us to critically reflect on and evaluate where we are, where we have been, and where we are goingfrom an RinDperspective In other words: what has worked (and what has not) in terms of partnerships, communication, institutional arrangements and structures, (and science too!) Extract these learning lessons and apply these towards a Humid Tropics CRP with (hopefully) a higher impact potential. We seem to have some difficulty really comprehending what an „innovation system‟ is, and even more sooperationalizing it. There is an implementation gap. Are we walking the walk or just talking the talk? Willingness to adopt institutional learning, where existing culture and practices can be changed long-term funding commitment to sustain the learning and
  29. 29. Biting the bullet There is no silver bullet (or even bronze bullet…) System complexity is a given (people and their decisions are inherently complex – and diverse). „We need to embrace complexity‟ and develop coherent approaches for dealing with it. This will take learning and adaptation on our part! Starting point: work towards better operationalisation of AIS and build off existing approaches such as PLA.

Editor's Notes

  • Most of us would probably agree that CIALCA is in the business of agriculture. I look at this differently – I see CIALCA as being in the business of change. Change in people’s income, change in nutrition, change in the environment, change in people’s livelihoods. It’s possible that other domains and sectors can contribute to achieving these desired changes. But for us, we have chosen the entry point of agriculture to do so.
  • In terms of impact, CIALCA has two key milestones which we hope to achieve by the end of 2012.
  • Previously I had mentioned the CIALCA goal of delivering science-based agricultural knowledge. But what knowledge really? There are many definitions, but here’s a practical definition that I’m quite partial to.Knowledge and information are terms that are frequently thrown about without any real thought, and even used as synonyms. Examples: ‘knowledge management’ vs. ‘information management’ or ‘knowledge sharing’ vs. ‘information sharing’. So what is the difference?Implications: we need to ensure our research outputs – which constitutes information – undergoes a cognitive transformation process which makes it relevant and applicable for our target audiences. ‘Knowing your audience’.
  • This is called the Santiago triangle of cognition.
  • T&V known as ‘touch and vanish’ system.
  • 1970’s realisation of better way to organisze knowledge processesLogframe: Effective impact pathways for all stakeholders along the value chain.
  • Final arrows:If we see CIALCA as a function of an innovation system, we probably need to redress two terminologies.
  • This is how CIALCA structures its impact pathways for action sites. In action sites, CIALCA identified evaluated and adapted with the help of CIALCA staff and development partners.Note that the indicators can vary per innovation. Indicators for nutrition internventions, for example, will be different.
  • Private sector for eg. supply of tissue culture banana plantlets.CIALCA impact pathways from George’s presentationIndirect: 1. development partners as intermediaries 2. farmer to farmer diffusionHigher level: capacity and knowledge to NARS and policy (draw piettraingle in policy box)
  • CIALCA impact pathways from George’s presentationIndirect: 1. development partners as intermediaries 2. farmer to farmer diffusionHigher level: capacity and knowledge to NARS and policy (draw piettraingle in policy box)
  • CIALCA impact pathways from George’s presentationIndirect: 1. development partners as intermediaries 2. farmer to farmer diffusionHigher level: capacity and knowledge to NARS and policy (draw piettraingle in policy box)
  • Here we assume adoption is analogous to impact, which is not necessarily true. We assume that productivity improvement by adoption of CIALCA technologies leads to livelihood benefits).What does this tell us? There is significant grassroots or horizontal diffusion taking placeCIALCA impact pathways from George’s presentationIndirect: 1. development partners as intermediaries 2. farmer to farmer diffusionHigher level: capacity and knowledge to NARS and policy (draw piettraingle in policy box)
  • This is the classical distribution of adopters over time and total adaptation. Assuming we are following such a curve, it is possible that the rate of adoption for CIALCA innovations is still increasing. The only way to know for sure is to re-evaluate in several years, when
  • CIALCA impact pathways from George’s presentationIndirect: 1. development partners as intermediaries 2. farmer to farmer diffusionHigher level: capacity and knowledge to NARS and policy (draw piettraingle in policy box)
  • This slides reflect the work of a CIALCA-student looking into outcomes of ISFM field trials in DRC. This shows that may be some room for improvement in the way we establish and manage and field activities. This exercise was participatory yes, but apparently did not always reflect farmer priorities (ie. their emotion in the Santiago triangle
  • Emphasize mix of tools.
  • PLAR approach (see pg. 158) – has been successfully applied for ISFM in several African countries
  • PLAR approach (see pg. 158) – has been successfully applied for ISFM in several African countries
  • PLAR approach (see pg. 158) – has been successfully applied for ISFM in several African countries
  • To conclude,I would like to leave you with a final parting thought. For the purpose of outscaling, perhaps we need to start marketing our innovations. Maybe we could take some cues and learn some lessons from other sectors which are more commercially oriented. We should help create demand for innovations that are the product of innovations systems processes. In this context, creating demand is not the same as supply-push. Here is a product group for which there is

×