P3.1 Working with National Innovation Pilot Learning Sites and Inter-regional Innovation Platforms


Published on

Wale Adekunle

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Farmers increased productivity of soybeans from an average of 900 kg/ha to an average of 2 tons/ha in northern Nigeria. This is an average of 120% increase for a total of 150,000 farmers. This translated into an additional income of USD 500 per ha per season for each farmer.
  • P3.1 Working with National Innovation Pilot Learning Sites and Inter-regional Innovation Platforms

    1. 1. Working with National Innovation Pilot Learning Sites and Inter-regional Innovation Platforms Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program Wale Adekunle Director, Partnerships and Strategic Alliances2ndGlobal Conference on Agricultural Research forDevelopment (GCARD 2) Forum for Agricultural Research in AfricaPunta del Este, Uruguay, 28th October-1 November2012
    2. 2. Prevalence of undernourishment in the total population % FAO Hunger MapHunger is most severe in Africa, despite abundance of human & naturalresourcesUndernourishment is responsible for 25,000 deaths each day.Responsible for stunting in 150m children (a life sentence of sorts)
    3. 3. Goal of the SSA CPProblem:African agricultural research has not realized its potential contribution towardsimproving the livelihoods of Africans, especially smallholder farmers.Goal:Substantially greater impact from agricultural research for development(AR4D) leading to improved rural livelihoods, increased food security andsustainable natural resource management throughout Sub Saharan AfricaMethod:Develop and test (proof-of-concept) an AR4D approach that overcomes theshortcomings of traditional approaches.This approach is known as: Integrated Agricultural Research forDevelopment (IAR4D) (Using Innovation Platforms)
    4. 4. Categories of problems faced by small farmers in AfricaExample of Nerica• Good technology Technological Constraints• Spread is sloweddown by non – Food and Nutritionavailability of insecurity, environme seeds ntal degradation and poverty Infrastructural Institutional Constraints Constraints Governance as an overarching factor4
    5. 5. Importance of non-technological Constraints •Knowledge •Technologies •Inventions In the hands of farmersNon technological constraints have remained“invisible” for too long On the shelves
    6. 6. Innovative Partnerships altering the landscapeRemoval of Technological , institutional and infrastructuralconstraints paves the way for food security, nutritionalsecurity, poverty reduction and environmental preservation
    7. 7. Innovative Partnerships based on analysis of Problems Partners determined by nature of problem at hand; capability; readiness to work with others; learn from others Then we conduct Problem Analysis Research Themes General Problems •Productivity •Poverty reduction • Markets •Food security • Policy Research Specific •Nutrition security • NRM Problem • Product Development •Environment •Gender • Nutrition • GenderSimilar analysis is conducted for Institutional and InfrastructuralConstraints identified or foreseen
    8. 8. IAR4D - Participation and Gainful Interaction Farmers Govt Private Sector End usersInnovation Systems Extension Research Transpoters
    9. 9. From Outputs to Impacts - Innovation Platforms Innovative Partnerships•Research Themes Socio-economic Productivity Technological Benefits Natural Innovations Resource management Market Institutional Policy Innovations Product Development Infrastructural Nutrition Innovations •Gender
    10. 10. Meeting old and new challenges Public Sector Private Sector Human Capital Innovation Platforms Research and Devpt Women Youths
    11. 11. Management and Governance of the SSA CP…1/2At three levels 1. Task forces [Field research + coordination of taskforce members] 2. PLS Level [Pooling of TF research to PLS level + coordination of TFs] 3. Programme [Pooling of PLS research to prog. Level + coord. of PLS] PROGRAMME SSA CP Director Agreements Lead PLS 1 PLS 2 PLS 3 InstitutionAgreements Agreements Agreements coordinators TF TF TF TF TF TF TF TF TF TF Leaders
    12. 12. Disbursement Mechanisms CGIAR FARA CORAF CIAT IITA KKM L Kivu ZMM Contract ContractIITA IFDC INRA CIAT MU RAB Bio TSBF SOFECSA TF approval Contract Collaborating Collaborating Collaborating Institutions Institutions Institutions
    13. 13. Recommendations of the M&G reviewProgramme levelCGIAR structures CGIARSteering Committee Regional Level FARA SSA CP Coordination Unit Programme SSA CP Steering committee of Committee FARA’s ExecutiveFARA secretariat/ Board Sub RegionalCoordination Unit Level ASARECA CORAF SADC-FANR Sub regional level PLS Level  SRO structures Governance CRST TF1 TF2 TF3 Acronyms Management CRST = cross-site research support team  Lead institutions TF = Task Force PLS = Pilot Learning sites ASARECA, CORAF and SADC-FANR are the SROs  Management Committees Project Level
    14. 14. Examples of benefits from Rwanda Institutional Solution Technological option Socio economic benefitsBasic Problem
    15. 15. The partners spoke out I am an input dealer, I also benefited a lot I built a new I now I house which I used my sponsor my And bought assets to buy fetches me children to me cows rabbits 20,000 F a too month the universityIncrease in yield coupled with I represent the Bank, webetter market access also benefited significantlyWin-win partnerships
    16. 16. Impact coming already I have a car and ten jobs have been created I am building a modern washing bay
    17. 17. Success story…. Uganda  Product of indigenous knowledge strengthened with modern science and contributions from the University of Makerere  willing entrepreneurs  Producers looking for market  Input dealers looking for Mamera now in the supermarket market ….. More income, more  Cooperation of Policy jobs, nutrition makers and extension Stanbic Bank
    18. 18. Success story…. DRC Kasiksi & Mutobe  Product of indigenous knowledge strengthened with modern science and contributions from the University of Goma, DRC  willing entrepreneurs  Producers looking for market  Input dealers looking for market  Cooperation of Policy makers and extension Mecrego Microf-innance Win-Win Partnerships
    19. 19. Innovative Partnerships allow for scaling up and scaling outUP Second Level of Influence National Level First level of Influence District level Local or village Participating Farmers level Innovation Platform Upstream Research activities OUT
    20. 20. Conclusions• Promoting impact of research requires that we complement technologicaloptions with appropriate institutional and infrastructural solutions• This demands innovative partnerships on Innovation Platforms• The work in SSA CP has shown that increasing impact is possible if wecontinue to be innovative in setting up appropriate partnerships• CRP 1.2 will build on the success of SSA CP and other programs in theregion to reach a wide range of partners to contribute to reduction of foodand nutritional insecurity, reduction of environmentaldegradation, reduction of poverty and to economic development
    21. 21. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa Thank you for get bi-monthly news on To the attention African agriculture research for development visit www.fara-africa.org