1

« Présence Globale, Impact Local »

36 pays

SNV Siège

1970: La SNVs’installe auBurkina Faso

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

SCIENCE WEEK

3-5 july2012

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

What are Value Chains?

• End market

• Vertical linkages

• Horizontal linkages

• Supporting products

& services

• Business enabling

environnement

International Market

Domestic market

Export Wholesale

Processing

Input supply

Global markets

Producing

Supporting Products Services(finances, transport, training,etc)

4

IP to create a logic change

5

What are Innovative plateforms?

• Instruments that have emerged in

response to growing body of

“natural &/or traditionnal”

relationship at local level

• Community (with various actors)

set up relationship, developed tools,

rooted in an understanding needs

and willpower to engage gov’t and

other stakeholders to secure

community wellbeing

• Identify/Develop/adapt best fits to

address a number of key challenges

Conservation and

Sustainable Use

Culture / Spirituality

TerritoryNatural Resources

6

High power inequality

Low power inequality

IP an other MSP

DialogueNegotiation (at best)

MSPs in this context run into problems:- Difficult to find common

goal- Conflicts hard to

manage

MSPs in this context are suitable:- Common goal is present,

or is within reach- Ingredients for learning

among stakeholders are present

Facilitators at risk of becoming go-between factions; and take over roles of stakeholders

Facilitators can concentrate on supporting dialogue, learning, innovation

7

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 communityd)Lack of willpower

8

Positioning IPin multi-stakeholder processes

Collaboration as an MSP with

external stakeholders

No collaboration (yet) as an MSP with external stakeholders

Participatory approch program

Conflicts over various interest

more often on the left side

Value chains more often on the right side

High power inequality

Mediated power

inequality

Producer group

Mutistakeholders network

processers

Engaging with ABS will improve dialogue and get community willpower improved with VCD &

IP

Ability to deal with power

dynamics will reduce conflicts

I P

traders

Negotiation IPDialogues

Whole saler

MSP space to move from negotiation to dialogue

researchersCommunity internal on-

going dialogues on

BCP

Internal stakeholders

External stakeholders

Ability for joint

learning

Action ResearchR4D

9

What is a community for the purposes of a IP?

Community

Shared activity

Shared values

Common cause

Collective

decision making

Community members have to

be specialized in their

activities

Each member has to focus on

the relationship with others in

the vertical line

Commununities have to share

same values: gender issues,

governance, equity,

sustainability

10

From the IP to

the action research

• How can communities

(IP actors) be sure

that:

their needs are

relevant

their practices are the

best ones

the best fits can

improve crops and

livestocks production

11

Crop & livestocks’ subsector gived by V2 proposal (ILRI)

Subsector Analysis by a consultant (SNV)

VC selection by the actors (IP)

VC analysiS by actors (IP)

Upgrading strategies framework and planing

Commercially Viable solutions

Upscalling strategieS

Learning alliances

Programming at large scale level

Implementing,M&E

V2 EFFECTS

Beneficiaries

Action Recherche INERA/ARI

VCD

SNV

SNV TRAINING

Training on VCD by ILRI

Monitoring & Evaluation

Monitoring & Evaluation

HOW V2 HAVE EXPERIMENT THIS MODEL OF IP

12

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

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?

• 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

Key Results

Outputs Role of the facilitator

Role of the IP

Results Challenges

Baseline characterization and participatory inventory of RMS

Value VCA & SWOT focusing on RMS; setting IPPRA

Validation of VCA, identifying VC, defining strategies

VC actors draft their strategies to adress their constraints

• Time spent is more than planned

• Limited capacity of the IP to implement strategies

Targeted RMS recommendations for different actors and contexts in mixed crop-livestock agro-ecosystems

Multistakeholder facilitation (MSP);Development of Action Research Protocol (ARP)

Prioritizing & implementing activities:Drought, soil fertility; animal feed in dry season; Animal disease & mortality

•Shared understanding on the issues to be addressed and the modatility for implementation

•Actors are implementing activities

• Fund for inputs

• Market access

• Land tenure issue

• Access to technical services

• Capacity to document

16

Key Results

Outputs Role of the

facilitator

Role of the IP

Results Challenges

Internal and external communication

MSP, designing tools, follow up IP decision & activitiesSupplying inputs for ARP

From all VC actors meeting to representatives meeting

•Actors are able to negociate with various stakeholders

•Review & proposed modification of PAR activities

•Clear strtategies to address tech. & institutional challenges outside PAR protocol

Legality & legitimity of the IP to discus with stakeholders & financial servicies;

Cost of meetings; capcity of representatives to organise village meeting with others

Capacity building

Identifying needs, organizing workshops

Needs on business plan, land law, negociation skills

Actors have recognized and articulated their capacity needs

How to transfer knowledge to others in the community

17

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

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