The document discusses a mapping study on value chain initiatives in ACP regions, highlighting significant donor investment and the application of various tools and methods, yet noting weaknesses in defining beneficiaries and impact assessments. It emphasizes the need for improved coordination, accessibility of methodologies, and enhanced learning at national and regional levels to ensure effective value chain development. Recommendations include updating methodological guides and fostering discussions to help practitioners choose suitable tools for their contexts.

1. Tools and methods for analysing value
chains - how far have we got in practice?
Felicity Proctor
fjp@proctorconsult.org
UNECA/CTA
November 6-9, 2012
Session Respondent

2. This presentation:
• Overview and user demand – reflections from a CTA
commissioned study
– Felicity Proctor and Valerio Lucchesi (2011) Mapping Study on
Value Chain Initiatives in ACP regions. See UNECA-CTA
Conference 2012 website
http://makingtheconnection.cta.int/resources/mapping-study
• Respondent to the session presentations

3. Mapping Study on Value Chain Initiatives in
ACP regions
Methodology and approach – in summary
• Literature review including grey
• ACP commissioned papers
• Key initiatives review (X15 programmes reviewed)
• Key informant interviews (X15 – ACP regional)
• Electronic survey (65 – all stakeholder types)

4. Mapping Study on Value Chain Initiatives in
ACP regions – some observations
• Significant level of donor programme investment in Value
Chain Development (VCD) in ACP regions
• Multiple tools and methods applied but few are explicit on the
tools and methods used
• ‘VC Development paradigm’ - largely development partner and
northern institution led
• Multiple interventions made within a given ‘value chain
development’ initiative but weak articulation of how choices
were made

5. Chain development interventions – vertical
(frequency across portfolio of 15 initiatives, per cent)
Proctor and Lucchesi, 2011

6. Chain development interventions – horizontal
(frequency across portfolio of 15 initiatives, per cent)
Proctor and Lucchesi, 2011

7. BUT …what happens in practice (review X15 initiatives ACP):
observations relevant to MG
• Weak definition of the intended ultimate beneficiaries and causal linkages
of intervention for poverty reduction and small-scale producer/SME
outcomes
• ‘Full chain’ versus ‘partial chain’ interventions? - Interventions rarely
along entire VC
• ‘Supply/market’ chain versus ‘value’ chain?
• Institutional setting for VCD weakly articulated
• Weak coordination/linkages between multiple (and different donor
supported) VCD programmes (and methods used) in given country
/commodity
• Limited use of/availability of national expertise
• Few impact assessment /end of programme reviews including of tool and
methods used and of outcome/impact

8. Raises questions about
• Suitability of and access to VCD tools and methods available
• The use/application of such VCD tools and methods
• Pre-set development partner /donor ideas on intended intervention
type – lack of flexibility to address priority perceived needs/or
sequence interventions in an optimal manner
• Lack of post programme evidence-based and publically available
impact assessments to inform refinement of VCD tools and
methods, etc
• Inadequate mechanisms and structures for shared understanding
and learning at all levels
• Inadequate country/regional level VCD skills capacities and of
wider leadership

9. Perspective of users of MG:
Do available resources meet your needs?
Number of respondents
Proctor and Lucchesi, 2011

10. Today's presentations:
• An analytical review of eleven Value Chain methodological guides
(Donovan et al 20XX in draft- ICRAF/CTA)
• Two case examples: ValueLinks and CARE (which is based in the
work of CIAT, 2007). Both case examples given are part of the
ICRAF/CTA review
This ICRAF-led methodological review is a first to try to do a
comparative study of this type – thus a useful contribution to work
on chain development

11. Analytical Review (ICRAF) - reflection
• Sample – Methodological guides (MG) what sampling method used? omissions
possibly those with strong VC quantitative (costs, value, time) assessments e.g.
– Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS)/IFC: Moving Toward
Competitiveness: A Value Chain Approach - 2007
– WB: Competitive Commercial Agriculture in SSA - Keyser 2006
– CIRAD/CGPRT: Handbook based on CADIAC - Bourgeois and Herrera 1998
• Intended users and accessibility of information
– Provides information on scope/coverage of the 11 MGs . Much useful material
reviewed – but currently researcher focussed
– Categorised by 8 elements - Difficult to explore the causal linkages in given MG
i.e. between development objectives’ (specifically ‘chain-wide development’ cf
‘VCD’) ‘data collection’ and ‘tools used’ – so not comparing like with like or
providing easy access for practitioners
– Would benefit from also presenting the ICRAFanalysis by each MG

12. Analytical Review (ICRAF) - reflection
• Setting market and value chain development in wider development
context
– Need for new thinking on how to place MGs on value and market chain
development (tools and methods) in the wider development environment
• MGs cannot cover all aspects of interventions to support the
development of the market-value chain
– Need for new thinking on how MGs can draw down on related good
practice e.g. laws/policy for wholesale market reform, grades and
standards, contract law, etc
• How are MG updated and maintained
– With some exceptions e.g. USAID and ValueLinks, there is little
upgrading of the materials used on an ongoing basis

13. MGs in general - some final thoughts
• Enhance documentation and shared learning on VC methods and tools
– We don’t know - what is used and by whom and when in practice and
how well a given MG work and what has not worked – evidence based
• Enhance ease of access to content of MG for users in local context
– No one tool or method is optimal – but more effort needed to make valid
comparisons
– Make tools and methods more accessible
• Increase debate and capacity at national and regional levels to select tools
and methods fit for local context
– Avoid multiplicity of different MGs used in local context by different
donors and their consultants
– Enable national practitioners to select and use the best tools and
methods which work in their context (also called for in the ACP study)

14. Thank you
Felicity Proctor
fjp@proctorconsult.org