The document discusses the development trajectories of innovation platforms in the Lake Kivu Action Site in Uganda, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. [1] Five trajectories were observed: partial value addition, almost complete value addition up to processing, market linkages, productivity increases with little value addition, and consideration of natural resource management first. [2] Innovation platforms progressed through three stages: learning, system improvement, and setting innovations in place. Factors like leadership, facilitation, policy support, market access, and capacity building influenced platforms' development. [3] Key lessons included the importance of champions, conflict resolution, gender inclusion, private sector engagement, research, financial access, capacity building, and considering natural

1. Development trajectories of Innovation Platforms
in Lake Kivu Action Site
Nyamwaro, S.O., R. Buruchara , M.M. Tenywa, J. Mugabo, W. Chiuri, , R. Kalibwani, J.
Twebaze, A. Fatunbi and A.A. Adekunle
Paper presented at the International Conference on Integrated Systems Research, March
03-06 2015, IITA Headquarters, Ibadan, Nigeria
Lake Kivu Pilot
Learning Site

2. Presentation Outline
 Background
 Objectives and Methodology
 Key results and observations
 Lessons Learnt
 Conclusion

3. Background
Lake Kivu LearningActionSite(LKLAS)–Uganda-Rwanda-
DRC inECAFlagship–oneofthethreesitesinAfricawhereIAR4D
was piloted.
 The other two are Kano-Katsina-Maradi (KKM) – west Africa
& Zimbabwe-Mozambique-Malawi (ZMM) – southern Africa
Innovation Platforms (IPs) are based on IAR4D concepts
& principles. IAR4D has:
 Its roots in both INRM & IS
 Generated impacts in SSA smallholder agriculture
 According to Hawkins et al. (2009), IAR4D:
‘comprisesasetofindividual&organizationalbehavioursthatpromote
integration ofstakeholderconcerns,knowledge, actionsandlearning
aroundathemeofmutualinterest’.

4. Background …
IAR4D …
Was actualized into practice thro’ establishment & operationalization
of innovation platforms (IPs) approaches
Which are mechanisms for integrating innovations in three basic areas:
technological, institutional and infrastructural areas.
Technological & institutional interventions focused on various
thematic areas, viz a viz:
Technological interventions Institutional interventions
 Productivity
 NRM
 Policy
 Markets
 Product development
 Nutrition & gender
 Credit / finance
 Information / communication
 Insurance
 Input supply
 Policy
 Markets (market linkages,
processing & packaging)
 Product development, and
 Gender & nutrition

5. Background …
In LKLAS …
Actual areas of intervention revolved around: Productivity,
NRM, Markets and policy.
IAR4D was implemented in three major phases:
 Inception phase (2005-2007) 3 years
 Appraisals & planning
 Research Phase (2008-2010) 3 year
 Proof of IAR4D concept
 Research Extension Phase (2011-2013) 2 years
 Completing unfinished business of proof of concept, and
 Initiating scaling activities.

6. Objectives
The objectives of this paper are to:
 Review and learn about the successes of development
trajectories (pathways) of IPs in the Lake Kivu Learning
Action Area
 Share lessons learnt from the development trajectories

7. Methodology (Material & Methods)
Study Area
Figure 1: Map of LKPLS showing action (IP) & counterfactual sites (Farrow et al.,
2009)
• Located on the border region intersecting Uganda, Rwanda & DRC
• Covers a geographic area of about 20,000km2
• Human population estimated at btn 10 & 12M

8. Methodology (Material & Methods) …
Characterisation of LKLAS
Discussed in details in various publications:
- Tenywa et al. (2013a)
- Buruchara et al. (2013a)
- Thornton et al. (2006)
- Mateete et al. (2005).

9. Methodology (Material & Methods) …
Data / information collection and analysis:
 Relied on qualitative approaches mainly through:
 Literature review & synthesis, but also thro’:
 Intelligent direct IP observations and discussions thro’
KIIs & FGDs, and
 Case studies

10. Results, Observations & Discussions
Action
sites:
country /
district
IP Name Entry value chains
When
formed
Generation Innovation
Uganda
Kisoro 1. Chahi Irish potatoes & beans Nov 2008 1st • Market linkages with private sector
• Participatory selection of quality seeds; Credit access
Kabale 2. Bufundi NRM, Irish potatoes
& beans
Nov 2008 1st • Local government support; Collective action in NRM;
Market linkages with private sector
Kabale 3. Bubaare Sorghum Sept 2009 2nd • Local government support
• Market development of value-added sorghum
beverage – ‘Mamera’
Ntungamo 4. Ntungamo Organic pineapple Sept 2009 2nd • Best agronomic practices; Value addition of certified
organic pineapples for a niche market
Rwanda
Musanze 5. Gataraga Irish potatoes Nov 2009 1st • Value addition (dehaulming, washing, sorting, grading
and packaging) of potatoes for niche markets
Rubavu 6. Mudende Milk Jul 2009 1st • Cost-sharing in accessing credit towards better
quality milk and seeds
Table 1: LKPLS IPs, their locations, entry value chains, when formed & their selected innovations

11. Results, Observations & Discussions …
Rwanda …
Burera 7. Remera Snap beans, beans,
maize & passion
fruits
Aug 2009 2nd • NRM linked to relevant government policies and
increased yields and nutrition
Burera 8. Rwerere Chilli peppers Aug 2009 1st • NRM linked to relevant government policies and
increased yields and nutrition
DR Congo
Masisi 9. Buuma Cassava & beans Oct 2009 2nd • NRM, quality seed management, increased cassava
production & post-harvest handling
Rutshuru 10. Maendeleo Beans Oct 2009 2nd • Quality seed management; Participatory selection of
bean varieties; Collective marketing and credit
Rutshuru 11. Musanganya Bananas Dec 2008 1st • Market development, standardisation & packaging of
banana wine brand ‘Kasiksi’
Masisi 12. Muungano Irish potatoes Jan 2009 1st • Quality seed production; Participatory selection of
potato variety; Post-harvest handling
Notes: 1st generation IPs were researcher-led and agro-ecology-based and, 2nd generation IPs were market access based
Sources: CIAT (2014), Tenywa et al. (2013a), Tukahirwa et al. (2013), Mulema (2012), Nyamwaro and Buruchara (2011)
Table 1: LKPLS IPs, their locations, entry value chains, when formed and their selected innovations …

12. Results, Observations & Discussions …
The development trajectories of IPs in the LKPLS have
undergone thro’ an overall umbrella of the market-
productivity-NRM interface trajectory
However within this umbrella, various (5) fine-tuned trajectories
are observed, viz a viz:
(a) Partial value addition trajectory– Gataraga IP in Rwanda
→
Introduction of cleaning, sorting, grading & new packaging of potatoes doubled price
of potatoes from USD0.2 – USD0.4/kg. On average, participating farmers made a
profit of USD1,600 per season from increased potato production of over 2,000
farmers in this area

13. Results, Observations & Discussions …
(b) Almost complete value addition (up to processing &
packaging) – Bubaare & Musanganya IPs in Uganda & DRC
Mamera sorghum porridge now in the supermarkets - projected that over 5,000
farmers increased incomes by 80%, on average – Bubaare IP, Uganda
 Traditional banana by-products - very
short shelve life.
 ITK strengthened with modern science
- led ↑ shelf life up to a min of 6 months
→ decent bottling & labelling.
 If fully developed, there is potential to ↑
the banana farmer / brewer’s income
by big margins in Musanganya IP DRC

14. Results, Observations & Discussions …
(c) Market linkages trajectory – Chahi & Maendeleo IPs in
Uganda & DRC
Chahi potatoes – branded & linked to open markets in Kampala & now to the
newly completed Kisoro Potato Processing Industry (KPPI) in Kisoro District,
Uganda

15. Results, Observations & Discussions …
(d) Productivity increases (little value addition) – raw produce
raw (low-value) products trajectory – Muungano & Buuma
IPs in DRC
NB: Traditionally the SSA agricultural growth &
development have largely been supply-driven
(e) NRM consideration first trajectory – Bufundi IP in Uganda
 Dictated by agro-ecological situations
 Balancing efforts towards promoting improved NRM practices
with increased productivity

16. Results, Observations & Discussions …
Mapping out of IP Development Stages → Institutionalisation
According to Mokwunye & Ellis-Jones (2010):
 ‘Sustainability of IPs is apparent where farmer
organizations, commercial people & local governments
have become drivers & champions of their respective IPs’
 Hence, growth & development of IPs can fall in one of the 3
stages / phases of development

17. Results, Observations & Discussions …

18. Results, Observations & Discussions …
Stage / phase 2: - System
improvement
 Improving productivity & creating
value
 R&D organisations – facilitation
 Local & private sector – collaboration
 Increased market & service provider
linkages
IPS: → Maendeleo & Buuma in DRC;
Chahi & Bufundi in Uganda
Stage / phase 1:
 Still stakeholders in learning mode
(issues, challenges & opportunities, &
partnerships)
 Interest of new enterprises with
local partners , looking into market
& to service providers linkages
 Relying on leadership of R&D
organisations
 Private sector – developing interests
 Rotating around this stage – not
making much headway in moving
forward – behaving like new IPs
IPS: → Musanganya & Muungano
in DRC; Rwerere & Remera
in Rwanda

19. Results, Observations & Discussions …
Stage / phase 3: - Setting in place innovations
 New innovations: new products, new technologies, new
institutions, new marketing outlets
 Local partners – ownership, new organization
arrangements
 R&D organisations – backstopping
 Private sector – commercial opportunities & farmer
support
IPS: → Bubaare & Ntungamo in Uganda; and Gataraga
& Mudende in Rwanda

20. Other Key observations
Existing IPs continuously changing:
 Expansion of enterprises (honey, beans, millet)
 Increased product lines (cheese in Mudende; sorghum flour malted &
unmalted, baby weaning foods in Bubaare; potato crisps in Bubare)
 Increased of membership in some IPs
 Some technological challenges – still apparent
 Lack clean planting materials
 Not yet overcome effects of key diseases & pests – Banana
bacterial wilt, cassava mosaic, potato bacterial wilt
 Market challenges
 Long process of product certification: (e.g. organic
pineapples, Mamera, Kaskisi )
 Unsustainable niche markets – due to quality, pricing,
varieties, packaging

21. Some contributing factors to differences in
IP stages / phases
 Facilitative policy environment:
 Supporting agric. sector
 Presence of active policy maker / Government (national / local) –
leadership
 Continued capacity building to market orientation:
 Business mindedness, business plans, commercialization oriented
 Sustainable market & service provision linkages
 Common actions
 Product development & uptake – processing / packaging
 Friendly credit access to agriculture (low interests, grace periods)
 Diversification of products: enterprises spurs new interests & offers
new opportunities
 IP institutionalisation – e.g. acquisition of legal status to access services –
credits)

22. Some Lessons Learnt - Governance
 Leadership & IP management – critical to IP development
& sustainability
 Democratic, transparent & active committees & leadership steer
IPs to next levels, while the reverse is true for poor leadership &
management
 Presence of inspiring champions is encouraging: IPs that have
champions that inspire & encourage have developed faster &
received ‘win-win’benefits faster
 Facilitation is critical & required
 Esp. in Stage 2 of IP development when IPs are taking off
 Reduced facilitation of IPs tended to affect deleteriously some IP
activities, more so activities associated with value addition

23.  Active engagement and involvement of policy makers, government on IPs –
important
 IPs that have received government presence & participation have fast-tracked their
activities to level 3 of IP development & beyond
 Conflict resolutions & transformation must be part of the IP
management
 In some IPs conflicts of interest existed even at local levels, perceptions, &
expectations among stakeholders
 While, in other IPs leadership metamorphosis involving policy, religious &
political interests were experienced
 Thus, distracting productive IP activities
 Hence, capacity building in these areas is important
 Gender: The IP approach enhanced the involvement of women &
gave the a voice in participation & decision making
Lessons Learnt – governance …

24.  Social capital – whole spectrum of membership (private
sector, policy makers, researchers, extension workers,
farmers etc.) is in important
 Private sector initiative – very important in marketing &
esp. value addition (processing & packaging)
 Researchers necessary – to meet demand for technology
research & innovations – still important & required
Lessons Learnt – Social capital

25.  Financial capital access: support either thro’ donations or
accessible friendly/low interest agric. credits to support IP
activities (production, marketing, value addition/processing, &
certification processes) is critical
 Acquisitions of inputs such as clean planting materials, inorganic
fertilizers, pesticides, farm implements & machinery, storage
 Availability of markets & market access – critical
 No markets & market accessibility – IPs won’t move up much
 Certification for organic pineapples
by international standards bodies is
lengthy & costly
Markets spur production & processing
Hence, market facilitation is important & required
Lessons Learnt – Financial

26.  Capacity building is important – for equipping IP
members with knowledge & skills:
 Sensitization
 Training
 Exposure visits
 Peer to peer horizontal learning / sharing from success
stories
Lessons Learnt – Human capital

27.  IP performance depends on natural resource endowment
 IPs with fertile soils are more diversified
 IPs in degraded environments have difficulties in
increased sustainable production
 Facilitation in NRM is thus important & required
Lessons Learnt – Natural resource assets

28. Some Conclusions
 Mixed development trajectories observed in LKLAS IPs, in which some (well
market linked, high market demand, some value addition) appear to grow faster
than others to reach the 3rd stage of IP development.
 The unusual way conducting business in the LKLAS thro’ use of IAR4D
approach in participatory, simultaneous & effective focus & implementation of
productivity, NRM, market, policy & related challenges has facilitated evident
successes in the growth & development of IPs into three stages of IP
development.
 Situations where productivity, NRM & market issues were addressed
simultaneously, better IAR4D results were registered
 IPs thrive & develop better & faster where there are facilitative policies &
institutions that support agric. Sector
 Policy support & involvement of local leaders / champions also appeared to be
very useful in fostering the well-being & sustainability of IPs.
 Political stability is a precondition for proper development & operations of
projects including IPs
 Market-led processes are invaluable in catalysing innovations & providing
incentives to actors

29. Thank You!