Doing things differently: Post-Harvest Innovation Learning Alliances in Tanzania & Zimbabwe

Brighton Mvumi, Mike Morris, Tanya Stathers, William Riwahttp://www.nri.org/PHILA/

Background (1)

• Common denominator for research team was the problem of storage insect pests:– livelihoods of rural households in sub Saharan

Africa undermined by storage insect pests; – many farmers rely on imported organo-

phosphate-based pesticides to protect stored grain; safety and efficacy of these chemicals in doubt;

– households using traditional control materials are faced with inconsistent and often poor results;

Background (2)

• Appropriate technology (hardware) solution:– Diatomaceous Earths (DEs), inert fossil dusts,

can be admixed with grain– Function by causing insects to dehydrate & die

• Research established that: – DEs (imported & local) efficacious as grain

protectants in range of Agro-Ecological Zones;– DEs readily usable by diverse smallholders in the

different locations;– food stocks (maize, sorghum, beans & cowpeas)

successfully protected for periods of > 8 months.

Background (3)

• Getting DEs into use amongst rural HHs requires a multitude of changes in the institutional setting: – Farmers & extension staff have to fully

understand the limitations and dangers of existing protectants,

– Advisors have to be influenced & to recommend policy and regulation changes,

– Registration authorities need to be persuaded to ‘buy into’ and support research findings,

– Private sector needed to step forward and champion the registration process

The Problem

• Why do things differently?– Conventional approaches to technology

transfer within small-scale farming systems have frequently failed – DEs yet to take off;

– HH food security remains precarious for many people in the rural areas and food production levels show little or no increase;

– PH service provision & research focus on technology; less on understanding delivery system constraints, distinguishing between needs & priorities of different HHs, exploring farmers’ own research capabilities;

The Opportunities (1)

• Innovation system thinking, which recognises that:– new products and processes are brought into

use, not just by the activities of researchers , but through the activities of a number of widely different actors and organisations;

– translation of ideas into use requires • appropriate technologies, • compatible mindsets and • favourable institutional settings

The Opportunities (2)

Training

Processing / Post-harvest

Business services e.g.

credit

Marketing

Input supply

Advice

Livelihoods of farming households

Public research (conventional) & link to extension

Private research e.g. cellphone banking

Private research e.g. seeds

Access to productive resources

Infrastructure

Technology

Mediating institutional arrangements & policies

Facilitation by local organisations

(NGOs, farmers groups, local government) Registration & regulation

of storage pesticides

Innovation system from farmer’s perspective

The Opportunities (3)

• Learning Alliances (LAs) provide for alignment of the key components of innovation:– hardware – appropriate technologies; can be

indigenous or imported;– software – action research to develop compatible

mindsets and adaptive capacity;– system-ware – to address constraints in the

institutional settings, outside the remit of conventional research approaches.

Learning Alliance functions (1)

• Information sharing amongst membership:– stakeholder workshops, documentation, ICTs

& regular communications, website etc.

• Action research (case studies) to:– develop specific understanding of supply-side

& demand-side issues;– develop compatible mindsets between

partners, and local adaptive capacity – learning by doing

Learning from evidence(rational, universal,

best practice, linear)

Both approaches used in Case Studies, but action research develops ‘in tune’ mindsets

After: Barabara Adolph

Learning from practice and interaction (intuitive,

contextual, adaptive, interactive, experiential)

Conventional Research

Action Researchvs.

Learning Alliance functions (2)

• LAs are influenced by and seek to influence the institutional environment – the rules & play of the game – including:– policy agendas, content & implementation;– R & D programmes;– staffing arrangements;– access to and use of ICTs

• Management of information sharing, action research & advocacy functions.

Achievements (1)

• PHILA members are relating & learning together in new ways– PHILA established in Tanzania & Zimbabwe– New CS tools & techniques shared & adopted– ICT training & promotion– New awareness & understanding of the need

for institutional learning & change (i.e. system-ware & software)

Achievements (2)

• Practical insights & recommendations for service provision developed, based on:– Study of public service providers & research – Studies of public service & NGO service

provision – Participatory planning exercises in 4 districts– Farmer & extension staff exchange visits– Enquiry visits to explore farmer diversity– Review of policies, their formulation &

implementation

Achievements (3)

• Understanding of ability of different stakeholders to access & utilise information:– Individuals in many farming households in

multiple locations familiar with better storage practices (e.g. application DEs, ASD etc)

– Exchange visits explored farmer-to-farmer & farmer-extension staff learning

– Empowerment studies throwing light on demand-led approaches

– Study of agro-chemical companies & public service providers

Persisting Challenges (1)

• Establishing LAs involves high front-end transaction costs– donors do a lot of policy pushing but are slow

to pick up implementation costs

• Innovation is essentially about changing institutional & social relationships– but is often confined to hardware; information

is misconstrued as knowledge; knowledge management defined as technology uptake

Persisting Challenges (2)

• Conflict inherent to rule (/inst.) change– The elite will resist rule changes; use ‘poor’

communication to exclude other players etc.– private sector players, typically busy & cost-

aware, are often reluctant to participate, have competing interests.

• LAs need to build on existing platforms (parallel structures are out) which do not flag learning – building trust is better than subversion, but time

consuming & usually costly.

Persisting Challenges (3)

• LAs are about changing the dynamics within and between organisations, but– rely heavily on the skills & energies of

individuals– documenting process learning is difficult

• If they are to have sustained impact, then– LAs need to influence policy makers and

other key stakeholders– LAs need to secure buy-in (membership) from

policy makers and other key stakeholders

The Future• LAs offer a strategic approach to providing

services which are demand-led, client-oriented, empowering etc., but– continued support from the R&D communities

and donors, essential;– commitment of statutory authorities (e.g. line

ministries, local government), essential;– involvement of private sector, essential; and,– representation of diverse farmer-types,

imperative

Thank You