NBDC local Innovation Platforms:            Progress so far...  Beth Cullen, Alemayehu Belay, Alan Duncan, Katherine Snyde...
Why Innovation Platforms?                        Or...
How does NDBC IPs differ from FAP IPs?                    Pre-defined entry point and value chain approachFodder          ...
Meetings so far...
Community engagement
Stakeholder Capacity BuildingA lot of talk about ‘participation’ but little knowledge about how to put it into action.    ...
Issues       Site            Main Issue            Related Issues                      Unrestricted                Land   ...
IP Fodder interventions to complement SLM campaign
Innovation Fund     • 80,000 ETB to be allocated to platforms to fund       activities which address RWM issues     • Prop...
Future activities• ODI work on political economy and equity analysis of RWM interventions• Qualitative work on adoption to...
Challenges so far...• Facilitation of IPs is time and resource consuming• Good facilitation is essential• Facilitation occ...
Potential Risks• Action on the ground may not meet our timetable or expectations. Conflict  between allowing the process t...
Learning so farResearch outputs                                       Inform policyInformation on:                        ...
NBDC local innovation platforms: Progress so far
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

NBDC local innovation platforms: Progress so far

2,161 views

Published on

Presentation by Beth Beth Cullen at ILRI Addis Ababa, 14 June 2012.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,161
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
916
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

NBDC local innovation platforms: Progress so far

  1. 1. NBDC local Innovation Platforms: Progress so far... Beth Cullen, Alemayehu Belay, Alan Duncan, Katherine SnyderAberra Adie, Zelalem Lemma, Kebebe Ergano, and Josephine Tucker 14th June 2012 ILRI Addis Ababa
  2. 2. Why Innovation Platforms? Or...
  3. 3. How does NDBC IPs differ from FAP IPs? Pre-defined entry point and value chain approachFodder Joint identification of common NRM issue to ensure collective action NRM Issue? Takes time!
  4. 4. Meetings so far...
  5. 5. Community engagement
  6. 6. Stakeholder Capacity BuildingA lot of talk about ‘participation’ but little knowledge about how to put it into action. WAT-A-GAME- Participatory planning for NRM (www.watagame.info)
  7. 7. Issues Site Main Issue Related Issues Unrestricted Land Fogera grazing degradation Land Termite Diga degradation infestation * Jeldu Soil erosion Deforestation Fodder interventions have been selected by stakeholders in all three sites to address these issues* Interventions in Diga linked to CPWF Termite Action Research Project
  8. 8. IP Fodder interventions to complement SLM campaign
  9. 9. Innovation Fund • 80,000 ETB to be allocated to platforms to fund activities which address RWM issues • Proposals and action plans currently being developed by stakeholders according to defined criteria • Actions should be cross-sectoral, participatory, designed to address RWM issues and targeted to suitable area • Sites have been selected in kebeles within the designated NBDC watersheds • Action to take place at household level, farmland and communal land • Action has already started in Diga and Fogera
  10. 10. Future activities• ODI work on political economy and equity analysis of RWM interventions• Qualitative work on adoption to complement N3 survey work• Continued work on scenario development in collaboration with N3 and N4 work (perhaps use of Happy Strategies Game) as well as AfroMaison work• Cross-basin collaboration (Volta ComMod)• Hand over facilitation to partners for long term sustainability (partnership agreements currently being drafted)• Formation of stronger links to national platform activities• Formation of stronger links with GIZ SLM through coordinated activities 11
  11. 11. Challenges so far...• Facilitation of IPs is time and resource consuming• Good facilitation is essential• Facilitation occurring from a distance• Platforms have been driven by NBDC agenda• Problems with incentives (issues over per diems etc.)• Platform participants inconsistent attendance at meetings• Stakeholders often play dual roles which can affect the process• How to incorporate existing knowledge and experience (e.g. RIPPLE, IPMS, African Highlands Initiative etc.)• Design of M&E processes which do not rely on researchers (participatory video to perhaps play a role in this)• Lack of adequate funds and high expectations! 12
  12. 12. Potential Risks• Action on the ground may not meet our timetable or expectations. Conflict between allowing the process to develop at the pace of the stakeholders versus the need for outcomes. A problem with externally driven platform processes.• Lack of collaboration with other NBDC groups could be problematic, integrating biophysical information will be important to inform action on the ground• Partner organizations willingness and ability to facilitate the platforms will impact the long term success and sustainability of activities.• Process as important as outcomes! But developing a good process doesn’t necessarily ensure impact... other factors play a role too. 13
  13. 13. Learning so farResearch outputs Inform policyInformation on: •Concrete outcomes that can be fed to national level•Livelihood strategies and constraints platform•Factors influencing adoption/lack of adoption •Suggestions for alternatives to current practices•Social, economic and political drivers of landscape •Piloted processes that can be tested and replicatedchange for use in planning and implementation•Development of research/implementation processes•Experiences, lessons, best practice

×