CPWF Volta Science Workshop: Integrated Rainwater Management in Crop-Livestock Systems

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
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 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 /
• 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 other MSP
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 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
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 a community 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 IP to
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 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 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 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