Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AMHARA NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER LINKAGES IN RURAL INNOVATION
PROCESSES IN AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA
Working Document Series 137 Ethiopia – 2010
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER LINKAGES IN RURAL INNOVATION
PROCESSES IN AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA
Demekech Gera Fisseha Moges Getnet Zeleke
Kindie Tesfaye Melkamu Ayalew
This report is the product of team work with the authors listed in alphabetical order
International Centre for development oriented Research in Agiculture (ICRA) PO Box 88 6700AB Wageningen The Netherlands www.icra-edu.org
University of Bahir Dar (BDU) P.O. Box 79 Bahir Dar Ethiopia www.bdu.edu.et
Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) P.O.Box 527 Bahir Dar Ethiopia www.arari.gov.et
Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) P.O.Box 437 Bahir Dar Ethiopia
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, our deepest appreciation and heartfelt thanks go to the International Center for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) for the financial support and the training opportunity given to the team. We are also grateful to NUFFIC for giving the fellowship grant to some of the team members. We would like to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to the Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI), which hosted the team by offering office, vehicle, administrative assistance, office supplies, and meeting hall. We are greatly indebted to Andassa Livestock Research Center (ALRC) for providing a vehicle during the field study period in Bahir Dar City. We are grateful to the Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) for providing valuable ideas that enriched the study and a conference hall, free of charge, for the final workshop. Our special thanks are due to Dr. Getachew Alemayehu, Dr. Fentahun Mengistu and Dr. Enyew Adgo (local coordinators), and Dr. Nour Sellamna (ICRA reviewer) for their overall facilitation and help in our field work. Our thanks also go to Mr. Kebede Yimam, head of BoARD and Dr. Taddesse Amsalu, advisor to the Regional President on watershed and natural resource management, for their willingness to give respectively the opening and closing addresses of the final workshop, and their valuable ideas notwithstanding their busy schedule. We would like to pass our great appreciation and thanks to those individuals, groups, farmers and organizations that were directly or indirectly involved in this study for sharing their valuable ideas and time with us. Our appreciation also goes to the ICRA staff members for their hospitality and support that made us feel at home. Last but not the least; we owe special thanks to our families for their support and patience during our absence from home. Above all, we give glory to The Lord for He has given us the strength, endurance and seeing us throughout.
ii
THE ETHIOPIA ICRA 2010 TEAM
Name/Position Institute Phone/email
Demekech Gera Programme Officer
Agri-Service Ethiopia P.O. Box 2460 Addis Ababa +251-116 55514
Fisseha Moges Assistant Researcher
ARARI P.O.Box 27 Bahir Dar +251-582 310214
Getnet Zeleke Livestock Research Coordinator
ARARI P.O.Box 27 Bahir Dar +251-582 310214
Kindie Tesfaye Dean College of Agriculture
Haramaya University College of Agriculture P.O. Box 134 Dire Dawa +251 255 530051/52
Melkamu Ayalew Associate Dean
Bahir Dar University College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences P.O. Box 79, Bahir Dar +251 582 203664
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments i
The Ethiopia ICRA 2010 team ii
Acronyms v
Executive Summary vii
1 Introduction 1
2 Rural Innovation and Multi-Stakeholder Processes: a Short Review 3 2.1 Rural innovation 3 2.2 Multi-stakeholder Networks, Platforms and Partnerships 3
2.2.1 The concept of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSP) 3 2.2.2 Definition of Platforms 4 2.2.3 Types and levels of stakeholders 4 2.2.4 Linkages and linkage mechanisms 5 2.2.5 The Role of a Facilitator/Mediator 5 2.2.6 Processes towards Platforms 6
3 Research Procedure 7 3.1 Objectives 7 3.2 Scope of the study 7 3.3 Methodology 7
3.3.1 Description of the study area 7 3.3.2 The study process 8 3.3.3 Data sources and data collection 9 3.3.4 Data management and analysis 11
4 Stakeholders in Rural Innovation in Amhara Region: Who are they? 13
5 Stake holders in Rural Innovation in Amhara Region: what are their roles, interests and capacities? 17
5.1 Role of stakeholders 17 5.2 Interests of stakeholders 20 5.3 Capacities of stakeholders 21
6 Stakeholders in Rural Innovation in Amhara Region: How do they collaborate? 23
7 Experience of linking Stakeholders in Ethiopia as well as in Amhara Region: what are the lessons learned? 29
8 Enhancing Rural Innovation in Amhara Region: What is the role of multi-stakeholders platforms? 33
8.1 Stakeholder awareness about multi-stakeholder platforms 33 8.2 Structure and roles of the ARDPLAC 33 8.3 Expectation of Stakeholders from ARDPLC 35 8.4 Sustaining Multi-stakeholder platforms in Amhara Region 37
9 Conclusion and Recommendations 39
iv
References 41 Annex 1 Institutionalizing Multi-stakeholder Rural Innovation Processes in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia 43
Annex 2 List of Final Workshop Participants 49
Annex 3 Introductory Workshop Welcoming Address 51
Annex 4 Introductory Workshop Opening Address 53
Annex 5 Final Workshop Opening Address (Amharic) 55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Institutions involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia......................................... 14
Table 2. Stakeholder organization roles as perceived by stakeholders in rural innovation in the Amhara Region......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 3. Interest of stakeholder organizations involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region ................ 21
Table 5. Strengths and weaknesses of the Research-Extension Linkage Council (RELC) and the Research-Extension-Farmer Advisory Council (REFAC) in Amhara Region ........................................................... 32
Table 6. Stakeholder organization expectations from the Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Advisory Council (RDPLAC) in Amhara Region ...................................................................................... 35
Table 7. Criteria recommended by stakeholder organizations for an effective multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) for rural innovation in Amhara Region ........................................................................................... 36
Table 8. Issues suggested by stakeholders to sustain ARDPLAC in Amhara Region................................ 37
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location map of the study area...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Mapping of stakeholders involved in rural innovation in the Amhara region, Ethiopia.................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. The type and degree of collaboration practised by stakeholders involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia............................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 4. The type and degree of communication means used by stakeholders involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia ....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 5. Position of the ARDPLAC under the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development, Regional level............................................................................................................................................................. 34
v
ACRONYMS AARC Adet Agricultural Research Center ACSI Amhara Credit and Saving Institute ADD Agricultural Development Department ARD Agricultural Research for Development AgMFSRC Agricultural Mechanization and Food Science Research Center AISE Agricultural Input Supply Enterprise/Agricultural Input Supply Corporation ALRC Andassa Livestock Research Center AMMA Amhara Mass Media Agency ANRS Amhara National Regional State ARARI Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute ARD Agriculture and Rural Development or Agricultural Research for Development ARDPLAC Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council ASE Amhara Seed Enterprise ATVETs Agricultural Technical, Vocational and Educational Trainings BD Bahir Dar AHL Animal Health Laboratory BDFALRC Bahir Dar Fishery and Aquatic Life Research Center BDSL Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory BDU Bahir Dar University BoARD Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development BoWRD Bureau of Water Resources Development CBE Commercial Bank of Ethiopia CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CIMMYT International Centre for Wheat and Maize Improvement CPA Cooperatives Promotion Agency DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research EPID Extension Project Implementation Department EPLAUA Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use Authority ESE Ethiopian Seed Enterprise FALRC Fishery and Aquatic Life Research Center ForE Forest Enterprise FREG Farmers Research Extension Group FSCDPO Food Security and Disaster Prevention Office FSDPP Food Security, Disaster Prevention and Preparedness. FSR Farming System Research GAPC Guder Agro-Processing Private Company GCA Ghion Consumers Association GDP Gross Domestic Product GO Government Organization GTZ German Technical Cooperation GU Gondar University IAR Institute of Agricultural Research ICRA International Centre for development-oriented Research in Agriculture IDRC International Development Research Center IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
vi
KPSE Kokeb Private Seed Company LOLE Land O'Lakes Ethiopia M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MFCU Merkeb Farmer Cooperatives Union MOA Ministry of Agriculture MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MoE Ministry of Education MoST Ministry of Science and Technology MSP Multi-stakeholder Platform NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations ORDA Organization for rehabilitation and Development in Amhara PADEP Peasant Agricultural Development and Extension Project PHC Plant Health Clinic RC Research Center RCBP Rural Capacity Building Project RED Research-Extension Division REFAC Research-Extension-Farmers Linkage Advisory Council RELC Research-Extension Liaison Committee RGov Regional Government SARDP Sida Amhara Rural Development Programme Sida Sweden International Development Agency SNV Netherlands Development Organization SWHISA Sustainable Water Harvesting and Institutional Strengthening in Amhara THFC Tana Haik No.1 Fish Cooperative TOR Terms of References UN United Nations WFPC Wongelle Feed Processing Company WGZARDD West Gojjam Zone Agriculture and Rural Development Department WARDO Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office ZARDD Zonal Agriculture and Rural Development Department
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A study was commissioned to analyze previous multi-stakeholder platforms and existing linkages between agents involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia, and to identify constraints and opportunities for developing effective linkages and partnerships in the region. The study was conducted from 15 March to 21 April, 2010.
Secondary data were collected on the historical development of multi-stakeholder platforms in the region as well as in the entire country. A total of 33 respondents (4 from NGOs, 3 from private organizations, 26 from government organizations) were identified, from whom primary data were collected through group discussions and key informant interviews. Semi-structured questionnaires were developed to guide the discussions and interviews. Information was also gathered from two workshops conducted at the beginning and at the end of the study period.
The strengths and weaknesses of previous attempts to enhance the rural innovation process, mainly that of the Research-Extension Linkage Committee (RELC) and the Research-Extension-Farmers Advisory Council (REFAC) were summarized. The strength of both the RELC and the REFAC forums is that they have contributed to the improvement of linkages among research, extension, and farmers. They also provided the opportunity to demonstrate and popularize technologies to farmers and other stakeholders. Farmers’ representatives have been participating, and although the degree was low, their presence helped identify researchable issues for grass root problems. Respondents considered the information exchange in the RELC and REFAC forums important.. In these platforms, agricultural development professionals from lower hierarchies (Woreda and Zonal level offices) were able to participate. They also created opportunities to capture different stakeholder perspectives, especially during research review and field days, and helped narrow the gap between research and extension. The different platforms initiated since the 1970s have not been able to sustain themselves, however, mainly because they depended on project funding. In addition, poor participation of farmers and other actors in the platforms, absence of decision making power of the platforms due to lack of legalized authority, poor documentation, lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities given to stakeholders, lack of a monitoring and evaluation system, lack of incentives especially for facilitators, lack of institutional memory in the stakeholder organizations and in the platforms due to high turnover of staff and committee members, poor coordination, professional bias and continued top-down approach were serious problems that constrained the effectiveness of the platforms. It was learnt that new platforms were created without evaluating the preceding ones.
Role, interest, and linkage matrix analyses were performed to determine respectively the importance, needs and existing collaboration of agents/stakeholders in the rural innovation processes of the region. Moreover, the types and degree of linkages between the agents and the means of communication used by them, and the existing capacities of stakeholders to facilitate multi-stakeholder platforms were examined. About 18 roles and 17 different interests/objectives were identified, indicating the existence of several shared roles and interests among the 34 rural development agents that were covered in the study. The agents’ interests/objectives were geared towards the overall objective of the region, which is to improve the livelihood of farmers and
viii
bring rural development. Moreover, conflicting interests were not encountered. Although the private sectors involved in agribusiness were more interested in profit making, they showed shared objectives and interests with other stakeholders (public organizations and NGOs) that are primarily established to enhance rural innovation. The linkage analysis indicated that out of the total expected linkages, 36% actually existed, whereas there was no linkage in 64% of the cases. A rating of the degree of linkages formed showed that 19.0, 21.0, 19.0, 22.4 and 19.4% of the linkages were very weak, weak, moderate, strong and very strong, respectively.
The majority of rural development agents revealed linkages with BoARD, followed by linkages with ARARI. The study result indicated either lack or very poor linkage among NGOs and among the private sector units themselves. NGOs and private sector units were better linked with government organizations. Although government organizations have shared objectives and shared roles, the linkages between them were not strong. Concerning capacities of rural development , 55% of the respondents replied that they had the skills, resources and logistics to facilitate multi-stakeholder platforms. The existence of agents with Multi-stakeholder platform facilitation capacity is an added advantage to the region in order to build from it. Criteria that were used to evaluate linkages (collaboration) are information exchange, knowledge sharing, joint planning, joint monitoring and evaluation, joint implementation, resource mobilization, and joint publication. Except for joint monitoring and evaluation, and joint publication, the stakeholder organizations were to a moderate extent practising all other criteria. Meetings, reports, document sharing, informal communication (telephone, friendship, neighbourhood, etc) and correspondence through mails are moderately practised by the stakeholders to communicate among themselves in the region. Based on their roles and interests, it was concluded that the respondent organizations were key stakeholders to agricultural innovation processes in the region.
Currently, the Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council (ARDPLAC), which is a nationally initiated multi-stakeholder platform, is institutionalized in the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) of the region to serve as a multi-stakeholder platform to facilitate the rural development activities of the region. ARDPLAC is young but has defined roles and responsibilities and also defined the roles it expects from its member stakeholders. The council has 160 members at a region level, and a similar structure and membership cascades to Woreda level. ARDPLAC is financially supported by the Rural Capacity Building Project of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). About 44.4% of the respondents were aware of the existence of the ARDPLAC, whereas 51.9% of the stakeholders did not know about it. The agents’ expectations from the council and their ideas on how to make it an effective and sustainable platform are summarized.
It is recommended that rural development agent organizations should appreciate collaboration as one of the major means of achieving their goals and need to mainstream the culture of partnership/platform in their regular activities. ARDPLAC needs to have its own annual budget, manpower and necessary logistics to be effective and sustain itself besides having project funding. Issue-based sub-platforms should be established under the ARDPLAC so as to strengthen linkages and collaboration among rural development agents that have shared roles and responsibilities and facilitate periodic discussions and decisions. There is also a need to build the capacity of stakeholders on partnership, system thinking, multi-stakeholder platforms, soft skills,
ix
strategic planning, and monitoring and evaluation through training, sharing of experiences and other interactive approaches.
x
1
1 INTRODUCTION
Ethiopia, situated in the Horn of Africa, has a population of about 80 million and a surface area of approximately 1.2 million square kilometres. Agriculture is the main stay of its economy, contributing about 60% of the country's GDP and employing more than 85% of the working population. The production system is dominated by smallholder farming under rain-fed conditions. Agriculture is traditional and characterized by subsistence mixed farming with crop and livestock husbandry in one farm.
The country has nine National Regional States. Amhara Region is one of these regional states where agriculture is the dominant economic sector employing 90 percent of the labour force and contributing 70% of the regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Agricultural production in the region is characterized by a crop-livestock mixed farming system.
Most of the region is producing cereals and pulses like barley, corn, millet, wheat, sorghum, teff, common beans, chickpeas, etc. The region has also an immense potential for the production of fibre, sugarcane, various spices and high-value fruits and vegetables. Cattle, chicken, equines, sheep and goats are prominent livestock species and make a significant contribution to regional as well as national economy. Water is an important natural resource of the region. There are about 70 rivers (e.g. Blue Nile, Beles, Tekeze, Atbara, Kessem and Jema Rivers) which have high development potential for both traditional and modern economic activities (ANRS BoFED, 2009). Irrigation, hydro-power generation and commercial fisheries all bank on this resource.
Despite the crop and livestock biodiversity, fertile soils, water and other natural resources, the presence of skilled manpower and work force, the agricultural sector which defines and leads the regional economy is relatively weak. This could be attributed to slow rural innovation processes that are unable to utilize available institutional potential to tackle problems related to erratic rainfall, prevalence of pests, scarcity and shrinkage of arable land, soil erosion and degradation and lack of enough improved technologies. Moreover, shortage of supportive services like credits, research and extension, poor socioeconomic infrastructure and poor institutional arrangements are other reasons for the weak agricultural sector (Girma et al. 2005). In fact, agricultural training, research and extension have been institutionalized in the country for more than 50 years, but with low impact on agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods.
In Amhara Region, much has been done in the last 20 years to enhance rural innovation. A Research-Extension Liaison Committee (RELC) was established in order to create a forum of discussion and collaboration between the research and extension systems. In the late 1990’s, with the inclusion of farmers, RELC was replaced by the Research-Extension-Farmers Linkage Advisory Council (REFAC). REFAC was organized at national, regional and research center levels, and functioned for approximately 10 years. Apart from REFAC, other attempts were made (like a women farmers group, a working group consisting of representatives of farmer research groups, a research management group, and a farming systems group) to enhance the participation of actors in technology generation and dissemination processes. On-farm research was prominent in the early 2000’s with the participation of farmers, extension workers and researchers. With the establishment of different stakeholders’ forums for different commodities, attempts were also made to scale up successful technologies that led to some remarkable achievements in the agriculture sector. However, REFAC was also found to be incomplete as it
2
excluded other innovation actors. As a result, REFAC has been replaced by the Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council (ARDPLAC) in 2008, in order to include other pertinent actors in agriculture and rural development. ARDPLAC is also organized at national, regional, zonal and district levels. In the Amhara Region, the council is institutionalized from region to district levels and its secretariat office is hosted in the Extension Service Process of the Regional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development.
However, there was no formal study conducted on the role of stakeholder linkages in rural innovation processes in Amhara Regional State, neither in the previous nor in the currently existing multi-stakeholder platforms and their influence. Therefore, the major objective of this study was to analyse the linkages among rural development actors/agents and to propose ways of strengthening and sustaining multi-stakeholder rural innovation process in Amhara Regional State.
3
2 RURAL INNOVATION AND MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES: A SHORT REVIEW
2.1 Rural innovation According to the International Centre for development-oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), an agricultural innovation system model assumes complex and dynamic problems as opposed to the linear innovation model that considers agricultural problems in a simplified form. In the linear model, innovation (new knowledge and technology) is generated from research and transferred to the end users (farmers) through extension.
ICRA defines innovation as “the process by which social actors create value from knowledge”. Innovation requires collaboration of stakeholders around a common theme in a way that their respective interests, perspectives and knowledge are captured. It also requires adjustments from different dimensions like policy, credit, organization, technology, markets and competencies. Therefore, Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) is the way to innovate and change through interactive learning and collective action. It mainly is a process of supporting and facilitating economic, social and community development.
2.2 Multi-stakeholder Networks, Platforms and Partnerships
2.2.1 The concept of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSP) ICRA defined MSP as the process of sharing knowledge and decision making whereby people and institutions work together and maintain equal personal/institutional power (ICRA, 2010). The principle behind MSP is that actors in a certain discipline/intervention who have a perceived common purpose come together and interact and innovate together to solve a common problem and/or advance their common cause/interest. MSP processes may last for short or medium term.
The UN also defined MSP as a “voluntary and collaborative relationship between various parties, both State and non-State, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task and to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits” (Adam, 2008). Multi-stakeholder networks are organizational structures that allow collective action beyond national, regional and local boundaries since participation is voluntary and objectives are negotiated among the participants. They are networked from different sectors that come together in order to find a common approach to an issue that affects them all (Rollof, 2007). Multi-stakeholder networks are additional venues for democratic participation (Habermas, 1998; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003).
A Multi-stakeholder Platform is, therefore, made up of different stakeholders/sectors, be they individuals, institutions, companies, who all are gaining or losing from a given issue (Warner, 2005).
4
Despite the fact that multi-stakeholder networks exist in various forms or types, they share common characteristics. Rollof (2007) indicated the existence of two types of multi-stakeholder networks: organization-focused, and issue-focused. Most multi-stakeholder networks are tripartite, which means that representatives from business, civil society and the state participate at some stage in the network process. They emerge or are initiated in order to address a specific issue or problem that concerns them. Issue-focused multi-stakeholder networks have a communicative approach that results in moral legitimacy. Their success depends on impact and responsibility of the issue. Dealing with other stakeholders urges actors to interact in a non-hierarchical fashion with each other. The inclusion of multi-stakeholders/multiple perspectives results from sharing individual concerns with each other rather than focusing simply on the needs of only one stakeholder. 2.2.2 Definition of Platforms The “Platform” part of the Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSP) concept is particularly hard to achieve. A Platform is described as a “forum for negotiation” (Warner, 2005) and stakeholders have to come to mutual understanding of the issue and act with equal rights and power, where in the case of the unequal power balance between and among actors, collective decision is very hard to achieve. Stakeholder management is structured as if everyone has the same degree of power and has to share the resource fairly. The consensus has to be reached, stakeholders can either learn together by changing (‘cognitive school’) or change can be made through changing power balances (‘realistic school’) (Warner, 2005). This means that platforms’ primary stakeholders (for instance local government and state government) must hold their powers, or power games are reduced away and take a step towards an equally beneficial management system, where actors enter with a more equal balance of power. In short, Multi-stakeholder Platforms mean different things in different cases, but as a concept of managing the variety of stakeholders, it tries to make stakeholders meet where they can discuss about issues without any power games (Warner, 2005; 2006). While integrating ‘relevant’ actors into the platform of a network, space for negotiation is opening for the one outcome that is to be expected, which is common consensus. This is where the challenge for every actor begins. Warner (2005) mentioned ‘integrative negotiation’ as a place where each actor has a common consciousness about the problem and they ‘put their selves in each others shoes’.
2.2.3 Types and levels of stakeholders To ICRA, stakeholders can be at any level or position in society, from the international to the national, regional, household or intra-household level. Stakeholders include all those who affect and are affected by policies, decisions or actions within a particular system. A distinction is often made between different types of stakeholders. According to Warner (2005) and ICRA (2010), stakeholders can be divided into different types as:
a. Key stakeholders who are considered to have significant influence on the success of a project
b. Primary stakeholders who are the intended beneficiaries of a project c. Secondary stakeholders who perform as intermediaries within a project
5
d. Active stakeholders who affect or determine a decision or action in the system or project e. Passive stakeholders who are affected by decisions or actions of others.
2.2.4 Linkages and linkage mechanisms According to ICRA (2010), linkages are interactions between organizations which allow the exchange or transfer of information, resources or power, the mechanisms of which can be structural or functional. Structural mechanisms are formally and institutionally recognized, e.g. direct supervision or authority, and community and liaison positions. Operational mechanisms can be informal and/or temporary. Such mechanisms include meetings, training events, contracts, partnerships, publications, broadcasts, joint activities and friendships. The improvement of overall knowledge and information system depends on managing and improving linkages between actors. When considering innovation, the management of these interactions or linkages is as important as the technology itself. Linkages and linkage mechanisms can be strong or sometimes poor or not working. The reasons for poor linkages are weak management capacity, inappropriate organizational structure, unfavourable reward systems, time and money constraints, inappropriate planning, little or no monitoring and evaluation of the process of interaction and different organizational cultures, expectations and operating procedures. Therefore, inter-organizational linkages should be assessed to maintain better aspects and negotiate improvements in existing linkages, linkage mechanisms and develop new relationships. Decisive factor that can influence the effectiveness of linkages include intensity and formality of contacts, ways of contacts (one way or two), stakeholders awareness of other stakeholders function, relevance of services, urgency, timeliness, accessibility, quality of communication, control over the relationship, and mandate of representatives. 2.2.5 The Role of a Facilitator/Mediator A manager of meetings/platforms (called ‘facilitator’ or ‘mediator’) is essential to initiate and maintain MSPs. Linking stakeholders to form a solution for a problem is a big responsibility (Warner, 2006). Therefore, the facilitator/mediator has to be chosen very carefully. It is preferable if the mediator has no direct interest in the issue (Röling & Woodhill, 2001; Warner, 2005 and 2006). If a platform is meant as a real forum for integrative negotiation, the mediator has to develop a strategy to engage different stakeholders with the subject. Warner (2005) supports the mediator who first diverges stakeholders and makes them realize what they really want from the issue as an actor and who should converge the actors with others into deciding about the management of the issue according to their perceptions and interests. Mediators of Multi-stakeholder Platforms have to have information and knowledge about each stakeholder, and should not let any power games take over.
The mediator should gain trust from these people in order to be productive. If the mediator does not have the qualifications to provide a mutual understanding between actors then it could all go back to where it began and power differences could let actors fall apart from Platforms. As Gray
6
(1997) argues, in a complex situation where different interests are taking place, disagreement can be turned into an agreement by developing a notion that each sector discards its way of looking at the issue and “reframes” the problem together (Warner, 2005).
Being able to work with all the stakeholders requires patience, calmness and management skills. It does not mean that all the people who are attending the platforms are going to be educated or will have this kind of character. However, practices and collective learning can develop these features. Changing stakeholders’ mindset about MSPs could be effective when they are shown good examples that have used MSPs as a solution (Röling & Woodhill, 2001: 17).
2.2.6 Processes towards Platforms The arrangement of the participation platform begins with the agreement of all the levels of stakeholders (Warner, 2005: 4) who must be willing to participate in the collective action that is being designed on their behalf. Stakeholders having different powers, different interests and different perspectives are going to be hard to get together, and if they do, it could be hard to keep them together. One can argue that arranging a platform with the participants is hard but it is harder to find a middle ground where everyone can understand each other. If participants do not understand the perceptions of other actors in the participation process, that could lead to ‘bargaining’ for their interests and finding a ‘facilitative condition’ (Warner, 2005:8).
Conflict management occurs especially when the resources become scarce and conflicts in the legal system begin. According to Röling and Woodhill (2001), there should be successful dialogue on conflict management, social learning, overcoming social dilemmas and facilitation so as to implement a multi-stakeholder platform.
Social dilemmas are artifacts of conflicts. They either bring ‘selfishness’ or ‘cooperation’ of people. According to Röling and Woodhill (2001: 7), these dilemmas should be solved by the development of an institutional ‘trust in reciprocity’. This could be done with ‘skillful’ facilitation (Warner, 2005: 8). In most cases, this is what is missing for achieving consensus. The facilitation process is expected to create a platform where stakeholders negotiate, discuss, learn and agree. Kok & Wind (2001:576) argue that the “platform for discussion takes into account different points of view on an equal basis.”
7
3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE
3.1 Objectives 1. Identify the key stakeholders involved in rural innovation processes in the Amhara
Regional State and describe the linkage among them,
2. Identify the constraints and opportunities for working in multi-stakeholder platforms and propose actions required to strengthen linkages.
3.2 Scope of the study As mentioned above, rural innovation involves several issues and several actors. It is hardly possible to study all issues and stakeholders at once in a given study such as this one. Therefore, the scope of this study lies within issues and stakeholders involved in agriculture and natural resource management.
3.3 Methodology
3.3.1 Description of the study area Amhara National Regional State is located between 90-140 0N and 360-40 0E, in north-west Ethiopia. The region has an estimated human population of 28 million with a population density of 178.2 persons per square kilometer (ANRS BoFED, 2009). The region is structured into 11 administrative zones and 156 districts with an estimated total area of 157,126.85 square kilometers that constitutes 11% of the total area of the country.
In terms of agro-ecology, the region is divided into four (altitudinal) zones: Dega (highland), Kola (lowland), Woina Dega (midlands) and Wurch (afro-alpine) that constituted 15.6%, 21%, 62%, and 1.3% respectively (ANRS BoFED, 2009). Annual rainfall and altitude range from 500 to 2026 mm and from 500 to 4600 masl, respectively.
8
Figure 1. Location map of the study area
Bahir Dar, the capital city of the region located at 570 km northwest of Addis Ababa, was selected for the study because of the following reasons:
1. ICRA has previously collaborated with several Ethiopian institutions, and is considering a new project with organizations of the Amhara Regional State including Bahir Dar University;
2. The headquarters of most of the agents involved in rural innovation are located in the city
3. The functionality and degree of linkage among the stakeholders involved in rural innovation process in the region is not well known.
3.3.2 The study process The draft field study plan was prepared in Wageningen from 8-12 March, 2010, which was presented to and discussed with the local coordinators in Ethiopia on 17th March 2010. The plan was further amended following the comments given. The team, together with the local coordinator and the reviewer, visited the BoARD to inform the Bureau about the study and to
9
introduce the team so as to involve them in the whole study process. The introductory workshop was conducted on the 18th of March, 2010,
The following activities were undertaken to prepare and conduct the introductory workshop: A total of 40 participants from 28 organizations working in rural development (further referred to in the report as stakeholder organizations) were invited, a semi-structured questionnaire was prepared and administered to 251 participants who attended the workshop. Two presentations were given to workshop participants, one on the “role of multi-stakeholder processes in rural development” and one on “field study TOR (problem statement, the past attempts of RELC and REFAC, research questions, information needed)”. The initial list of respondent stakeholder organizations prepared in Wageningen was revised based on the review of the ARDPLAC document and on inputs obtained from the first workshop and from local ICRA partners. Accordingly, 33 data source stakeholder organizations were identified.
A second workshop was held on 19 April, 2010. A total of 55 participants (out of 71 invitees, all heads of their respective organizations) from 412 organizations (Annex 1) attended the workshop. The study results were presented and discussed; comments and suggestions were collected and incorporated into this report.
3.3.3 Data sources and data collection i. Secondary data
The Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages Strategy document was consulted to review the attempts that were undertaken to strengthen rural innovation in Ethiopia in general and in Amhara Region in particular: RELC during 1986 -1998, and REFAC during 1998 - 2008. The status of the existing platform, the Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council (ARDPLAC), was studied through review of its Technical Operational Manual. This manual was prepared by Agricultural Extension Services Process of BoARD. Additionally, a short review on rural innovation and multi-stakeholder processes was prepared. The secondary data collection took place from 15th March to 1st April 2010.
ii. Primary data
Primary data were collected through group discussions, discussions with key informants, and through a semi-structured questionnaire.
Questionnaire survey: During the introductory workshop, a semi-structured questionnaire was prepared and distributed among 25 participants.
Group discussions: The group discussions were executed as follows:
(a) Two small groups were formed during the introductory workshop to discussion on one of the research questions: How can a multi-stakeholder process be strengthened in Amhara Region to bring about rural development?
1 8 governmental, six private sector, and four NGOs)
2 18 governmental organizations, eight NGOs, eight private, one farmer research group
10
(b) A check list was prepared to guide the group discussion during the primary data collection phase (24 March to 7 April, 2010). Discussions were held with nine stakeholder organizations:
• Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (ARDPLAC) - focal person and one expert,
• Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute - the General Director and three Sector Research Directorates,
• Adet Agricultural Research Center - the Center Director and three researchers,
• Farmers Research Group - 27 farmers, ten of them women,
• Amhara National Regional State Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office - the Deputy Head and three experts,
• Merkeb Farmers Union - the manager and one expert,
• Tana Haik I Fishing Cooperative - the manager and one member and employee,
• Bahir Dar University - the Vice Dean and three Department Heads, and
• Amhara Seed Enterprise - two experienced experts in seed system.
Discussion with key informants: Nineteen key informants, most of them Bureau or Office heads and in some cases delegated experts that had the best information on multi-stakeholder linkages and their organizations, were interviewed. The key informants interviewed were from:
• Kokeb Private Seed Enterprise • Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory • Bahir Dar Animal Health Laboratory • Ghion Consumers Association • Amhara Cooperative Promotion Agency • Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use Authority (EPLAUA) • Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic • Land O’Lakes Ethiopia • West Gojam Zone Department of Agriculture and Rural Development • Bahir Dar Zuria District Office of Agriculture and Rural Development • Guder Private Agro Industry Company • Amhara Mass Media Agency • Bahir Dar Fishery and Aquatic Life Research Center • Agricultural Inputs Supply Enterprise • Wongele Private Small-Scale Animal Feed Processing Company • Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA) • Amhara Regional Government Administration Office
11
3.3.4 Data management and analysis Starting from 25 March 2010, data from the questionnaire, group discussions and interviews with the key informants were entered into an Excel spread sheet and analyzed with descriptive statistical tools (frequency, mean, percentage etc.). The group discussions from the introductory workshop were summarized.
A stakeholder objective matrix and an identification matrix were used to identify key stakeholder organizations. In addition, a stakeholder role matrix was used to understand who does what in relation to the ‘system of interest’, so that the gaps and overlaps in roles can be identified and acted upon. A linkage matrix was used to analyze the linkage among the stakeholders involved in ARDPLAC (ICRA, 1998a).
The types of linkages and strengths between stakeholder organizations was measured using a 1 to 5 scale (1: very loose, 5: very strong). Seven parameters were considered to evaluate linkages/collaboration: joint planning, joint implementation, joint monitoring and evaluation, resource sharing, information exchange, knowledge sharing, and joint publication. To differentiate the different types of collaboration based on the degree of their importance for collaboration, arbitrary weight values of 1, 2, or 4 were given as shown below:
• Joint planning (weight value 4) • Joint implementation (weight value 4) • joint monitoring & evaluation (weight value 4) • resource sharing (weight value 4) • information exchange (weight value 1) • knowledge sharing (weight value 2) • joint publication (weight value 2)
12
13
4 STAKEHOLDERS IN RURAL INNOVATION IN AMHARA REGION: WHO ARE THEY?
The stakeholders involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region consist of users, cooperatives, unions, public organizations, non-governmental organizations and private institutions (Table 1). The majority of the stakeholders involved in rural development activities in the region were found to be governmental organizations. Except for stakeholders who have a national role and consumers associations, all stakeholders shown in Table 1 are also listed in the BoARD Extension Service Process document as major stakeholders in agricultural and rural development activities of the region (BoARD, 2008).
Stakeholders involved in different rural innovation activities (technology generation, technology experimentation, technology diffusion, technology learning and training, input supply, value addition, and financial support) in Amhara Regional State are mapped in Figure 2. The stakeholders are mapped according to the scale of involvement (user group, local, regional and national) and the role they play in rural innovation. It was found that the level of stakeholders involved in technology generation in Amhara Region ranged from national to regional level. However, there were no stakeholder involved in technology generation at District and Zone levels, except at farmer level, where focus was given to technology experimentation and diffusion.
In general, the 27 regional and local stakeholders considered in this study are all key stakeholders to rural innovation in Amhara Region. About 37 stakeholder organizations at regional level (160 participants), 26 stakeholder organizations at zonal level (74 participants) and 24 stakeholder organizations (63 participants) at Woreda level (BoARD, 2008) were identified as stakeholders to the rural innovation processes in Amhara Region by the ARDPLAC (BoARD, 2008). The 27 stakeholders considered in this study were among the ones identified by the Bureau except for the Ghion Consumers Association, indicating that the Bureau had been exhaustive in identifying stakeholders of the rural innovation process. Since stakeholder identification is iterative, this has to be practised regularly so as to take into account those stakeholders that are coming entering or disappearing from the system.
Stakeholder organization mapping indicated that most of the stakeholder organizations were involved in technology learning and training at different levels followed by those involved in technology generation and diffusion. The number of stakeholder organizations involved in value addition (agro-processing) are very few, followed by those involved in input supply and financial services (Figure 2). In fact, Amhara Region is one of the regions in the country where there is surplus agricultural production although there are areas in the region that are not yet self-sufficient. The results suggest that although the region could increase its production and productivity through technology generation, experimentation and diffusion, the development of the agriculture sector is constrained by a lack of actors involved in value addition practices.
14
Table 1. Institutions involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia
No. Governmental organizations Non-Governmental Organizations
Farmers, Farmer & consumers organizations
Private Institutions
1 Adet Agricultural Research Center (AARC)
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ)
Ghion Consumers Association (GCA)
Guder Agro-Process. Private Company
2 Agricultural Input Supply Enterprise (AISE)
Land O'Lakes Ethiopia (LOLE)
Tanahaik No.1 Fish Cooperatives (THFC)
Kokeb Private Seed Enterprise (KPSE)
3 Agricultural Inputs Supply Enterprise (AISE)
Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA)
Kokeb Farmers Research and Extension Group
Merkeb Farmers Union (MFU)
4 Amhara Mass Media Agency (AMMA)
Sida Amhara Rural Development Program (SARDP)
Wongele Feed Processing Private Company (WFPC)
5 Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI)
SNV Netherlands Development Organisation
6 Amhara Seed Enterprise (ASE) Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
7 Andassa Livestock Research Center (ALRC)
8 Bahir Dar University (BDU) 9 Bahir Dar Agric. Mechanization &
Food Science R. Center (AMFSRC)
10 Bahir Dar Animal Health Laboratory (BDAHC)
11 Bahir Dar Fishery & Aquatic Life R. Center (BDFALRC)
12 Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic (PHC) 13 Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory (BDSL) 14 Bureau of Agriculture and Rural
Development (BoARD)
15 Cooperatives Promotion Agency (CPA)
16 Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use Authority (EPLAUA)
17 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
18 Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE) 19 Food Security Coordination and
Disaster Prevention Office (FSCDPO)
20 Forestry Enterprise (FoRE) 21 Gondar University (GU) 22 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MoARD)
23 Ministry of Education (MoE) 24 Ministry of Science and Technology
(MoST)
25 West Gojam Zone Agriculture and Rural Development Department (WGZARDD)
15
Figure 2. Mapping of stakeholder organizations involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, EthiopiaVALUE ADDITION
TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION
INPUT SUPPLY
FINANCIAL SERVICE TECHNOLOGY
GENERATION
TECHNOLOGY LEARNING AND
TRAINING
EIAR
ZARDD
ARARI
ASHRA
USER GROUPSFarmer, Consumers
TECHNOLOGY EXPERIMENTATION
EIARBDU GU
MoARD GTZ LOLE
BDU EIAR GU MoST MoE GTZ LOLE CIFOR
ARARI (Research Centers)
ARARI(Research Centers)
BoARD ORDA SARDP AMMA
FREG, ZARDD WARDO
AISEESE ASE
KPSE
MFU
ARARIATVETs ORDA SARDP CPA
FREG, ZARDD WARDO
ACSI FSCDPO SARDP
THFC MFU
GAPCASHRAF
WFPC
REGIONAL LEVEL
LOCAL LEVEL
NATIONAL LEVEL
CBE
ZARDD WARDO
16
17
5 STAKE HOLDERS IN RURAL INNOVATION IN AMHARA REGION: WHAT ARE THEIR ROLES, INTERESTS AND CAPACITIES?
5.1 Role of stakeholders
The different roles of stakeholder organizations were analyzed to understand who does what, so as to identify gaps and overlaps. According to the responses, the 29 respondent organizations have about 18 distinct roles in rural development in the region. The degree of involvement was rated as “fully” or “partially” (Table 2). The respondents who fall under either of the ratings are considered as “involved in the role”.
• Research (technology and knowledge generation): ARARI (Adet, Andasa, Fisheries, Fram Mechanization and Food Science) are fully and Bahir Dar University is partially involved, BoARD (with its hierarchies and its centres like Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic, Bahir Dar Vet laboratory, Bahir Dar Soil laboratory) is fully engaged. Partially involved organizations include Sida Amhara, Forestry Enterprise, and Ethiopian Seed Enterprise.
• Agricultural training for farmers and experts is one of the roles found to be important and stakeholder organizations fully involved in training are Bahir Dar University, Regional Cooperative Agency, and the BoARD with its hierarchies. In addition, Merkeb Farmer Cooperative Union, Land O’Lakes Ethiopia, Bahir Dar Animal Health Laboratory, Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic, Bahir Bar Soil Laboratory and ARARI are partially involved in providing training to farmers, development agents and other agriculture experts.
• Agricultural marketing: BoARD, Merkeb Farmer Cooperative Union, Ghion Consumers’ Association and Kokeb Private Seed Enterprise are fully involved. To a lesser extent, the Regional Cooperative Agency, Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office, Forestry Enterprise, and Land O’Lakes Ethiopia are also playing roles in marketing.
• Input suppy: Out of the 29 interviewed respondents, about six (Agricultural Inputs Supply Enterprise, Amhara Seed Enterprise, BoARD, Kokeb Private Seed Enterprise, Merkeb Farmer Cooperative Union and Ethiopian Seed Enterprise) indicated that they were directly involved. Land O’Lakes Ethiopia, BoARD, and ARARI are also partially involved in technological input supply.
• Awareness creation, information dissemination and technology promotion is one of the roles essential for rural development. The main actor in this regard was found to be Amhara Mass Media Agency. Some stakeholder organizations like ARARI, BoARD, ORDA, EPLAUA, CPA and Sida Amhara, are also partially involved in awareness creation, information dissemination and technology promotion particularly when new technologies are developed.
• Natural resource management: The results indicated that a role of natural resource management is fully played by the BoARD at regional, zonal and district levels, Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory, EPLUA, Sida Amhara and partially by ORDA, Forestry Enterprise and ARARI (Table 2).
• Surveys and studies: BoARD (Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory) is responsible for surveys and studies whereas ARARI, BoARD (Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic, Bahir Dar Vet Laboratory), ORDA, BDU are occasionally doing the same.
18
Table 2. Stakeholder organization roles as perceived by stakeholders in rural innovation in the Amhara Region
Key: ++ fully involved + partially involved
Stakeholders
Res
earc
h
Ext
ensi
on
Tra
inin
g
Mar
ketin
g
Inpu
t Sup
ply
Doc
umen
tatio
n.,
Aw
aren
ess c
reat
ion,
an
d in
form
atio
n an
d te
chno
logy
di
ssem
inat
ion
Nat
ural
res
ourc
e
man
agem
ent
Surv
eys &
Stu
dies
Cre
dit
Fund
ing
Adet Agricultural Research Center ++ Agricultural Input Supply Enterprise (AISE) ++ Amahara Mass Media Agency ++ Amhara Seed Enterprise + ++ Andassa Livestock Research Center ++ + Ethiopian seed enterprise + ++ ARARI ++ + + + BD Agri. Mechanization & Food Science RC ++ + Bahir Dar Fishery & Aquatic Life R. Center ++ + + + Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic ++ + + Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory ++ + ++ ++ Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda ARD Office ++ + + Bahir Dar Animal Health Laboratory ++ + + BDU + ++ + BoARD ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + Cooperatives Promotion Agency ++ + + EPLAUA + ++ Food Security & Disaster Prevention Office + + ++Forestry Enterprise + + + Guder Agro-processing Kokeb Private Seed Enterprise ++ ++ Land O'Lakes Ethiopia-BD Site + + + + Merkeb Farmers Cooperatives Union + + ++ + ORDA + + + Sida Amhara Rural Development Program + + ++ + ++SWHISA + ++ ++ ++West Gojam ARD Department ++ ++ + Regional Government Ghion Consumers’ Association
19
Table 2. Continued…
Key: ++ fully involved + partially involved
Stakeholders
Agr
o-pr
oces
sing
Des
igni
ng a
nd
prod
uctio
n of
fa
rm i
mpl
emen
ts
Food
Sec
urity
Lab
. Ser
vice
Qua
rant
ine
Soci
al m
obili
zatio
n
Faci
litat
ion
of
MSP
Polic
y fo
rmul
atio
n
Adet Agricultural Research Center Agricultural Input Supply Enterprise (AISE) Amahara Mass Media Agency Amhara Seed Enterprise + + Andassa Livestock Research Center Ethiopian Seed Enterprise ARARI + + + BD Agri. Mechanization & Food Science RC + ++
Bahir Dar Fishery & Aquatic Life R. Center Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic + Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory ++ Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda ARD Office Bahir Regional Vet. Laboratory ++ BDU + BoARD ++ + ++ ++ ++ + Cooperatives Promotion Agency + + + EPLAUA + ++ Food Security & Disaster Prevention Office ++ + + Forestry Enterprise + Guder Agro-processing ++ Kokeb Private Seed Enterprise Land O'Lakes Ethiopia-BD Site + Merkeb Farmers Cooperatives Union + ORDA + Sida Amhara Rural Development Program + ++ SWHISA ++ West Gojjam ARD Department ++ Regional Government with its hierarchies ++ ++ ++ Ghion consumers association ++ Wengele Feed Processing Company ++
20
• Providing credit to farmers is the main function of the Amhara Credit and Saving Institute (ACSI). Credit service is also provided to farmers and private enterprises engaged in agricultural activities to some extent by Merkeb Farmer Cooperatives Union, Regional Cooperative Agency, Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office, BoARD and Sida Amhara.
• Funding: Among the respondents, the Regional Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office, Sida Amhara and SWHISA are the three stakeholder organizations that are fully engaged in providing fund to other organizations.
• Processing: Guder Agro Processing PLC and Wengele Feed Processing PLC are the only industries that are involved in processing. Merkeb Union, Land O’Lakes Ethiopia, Regional Cooperative Agency, ARARI, Amhara Seed Enterprise play supportive role to the agro-processing industries.
• Design and production of farm implements: Bahir Dar Mechanization and Food Science Research Center of ARARI is the only one that is fully engaged in.
• Food security: Although all stakeholder organizations contribute towards ensuring food security, the major institutions involved in this task are the Regional Administration, BoARD, Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office, Sida Amhara and, partly, ORDA and ARARI.
• Laboratory services: The different centers under the BoARD (Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory, Bahir Dar Animal Health Laboratory, Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic) provide different laboratory services as they are intended to do so and that of the Amhara Seed Enterprise, Ethiopian Seed Enterprise and BDU also provided same services even if the scope is not the same as those mentioned above.
• Quarantine is mentioned as a main duty by the BoARD. • Social mobilization: A role of social mobilization is mainly performed by BoARD and the
Regional Government with administrative hierarchies up to Kebele level. The Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office is also involved in such activities partially.
• MSP facilitation: The BoARD is fully involved whereas ARARI and the Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office are partially involved.
• Policy formulation: Although the degree of involvement varies, the Regional Government, EPLAUA, BoARD and Cooperative Promotion Agency are engaged in policy formulation.
In general, the results indicate that those stakeholder organizations who have similar roles have to collaborate and work together to innovate and enhance rural innovation in the region.
5.2 Interests of stakeholders An assessment of stakeholder organization interests was made among 27 respondents, and 17 categories of interests were identified. Most of the stakeholder organizations are very much interested in increasing agricultural production and productivity through generating, disseminating and supplying agricultural technologies/inputs. Others are interested in protecting the environment, increasing income of farmers, build their capacities and providing quality services to farmers. The interests are not conflicting, they are rather similar and support each other, suggesting that stakeholders are striving for common goals, i.e., ensuring food security, improving livelihoods,
21
and bringing rural development in the region (Table 3). Stakeholder orgninzations that have similar interest are termed as key stakeholders (ICRA, 2010).
Table 3. Interest of stakeholder organizations involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region
Stakeholder Interests Adet ARC, ARARI, BDU, BoARD Improve the livelihood of farmers through need-based
technology generation, adaptation and dissemination Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory Improve soil fertility AISE, Amhara seed enterprise, Bahir Dar Zuria WoARD Office, BoARD, Ethiopian Seed Enterprise, Kokeb FREG, W/Gojam Department of ARD
Increase agricultural production and productivity through timely input supply (seed, fertilizer, chemicals)
Gudar Agro Industry Work with farmer cooperatives and unions to get good raw materials
Amhara Mass Media, Amhara Seed Enterprise, ARARI, BoARD, regional Cooperative Promotion Agency, Land’Oleks Ethiopia, ORDA, Plant Health Clinic, SIDA Amhara, Wongele Animal Feed Processing Company
Create linkage and partnership with stakeholders
Bahir Dar Animal health laboratory, Bahir Dar Zuria District Agriculture and Rural Development Office, Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office, West Gojam Agriculture and Rural Development Department
Improve productivity through effective agricultural technology dissemination and supply to farmers
ARARI, BDU, Kokeb FREG, Land’Oleks Ethiopia, SIDA Amhara, Wongele Animal Feed Processing Company
Capacity building
Fishery Research Center, Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office
Enhancing fish and water resources for food security
Tan Haik No. 1 Fish Cooperative Improve income of members through fish market promotion
Amhara Mass Media Agency Agricultural information dissemination and promotion BoARD, ORDA Bring rural development through integrated approach
and harmonization Bahir Dar Zuria District Agriculture and Rural Development Office, BoARD, Merkeb Farmer Cooperatives Union, West Gojam Agriculture and Rural Development Department
Provide farmer oriented service delivery
Ghion Consumers Association Consumer-based service delivery and price stability BoARD, EPLUA Environmental protection and natural resource
management for sustainable development Kokeb Farmer Research and Extension Group (FREG) Timely access to required agricultural inputs,
technology and market information Food Security Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office Ensure food security BoARD, Regional Cooperative Agency Provide up-to-date market information
5.3 Capacities of stakeholder organizations Out of the 27 respondents, 55.2% replied that they had the manpower, finance and other logistics required to facilitate MSPs. The remaining 44.8% said that they lack the manpower and financial resources or they had no mandate to facilitate MSPs. The respondents were also asked whether they have the experience to facilitate MSPs. About 56% of them replied that they have been organizing forums like RELC, REFAC, input supply forum, society meetings, best practice workshops, GO-NGO forums, stakeholder awareness creation workshops, discussion forums for different issues, regular stakeholder workshops, and planning workshops. The remaining 44% of the respondents had not organized any MSP. Stakeholder organizations with the logistics,
22
financial resources, facilitation skills, and the experience of organizing MSPs, can potentially help build the competencies required to improve innovation performance in the region. In principle, new professional and new institutional capabilities are needed to enhance innovation performance. The new professional capabilities needed are soft skills (mind set) that include collective action learning, integrating scientific and local knowledge, communication and dialogue, self monitoring and evaluation, impact assessment, joint analysis and planning, participation of stakeholders, inter institutional partnership, interdisciplinary team work, and negotiation and conflict management. In addition to these, hard professional skills required include putting discipline in dynamic systems context, integrating contribution of different disciplines, and understanding different disciplinary paradigms. Furthermore, to enhance innovation performance, higher levels of disciplinary specialization and deeper understanding of subject matters are needed. Working in partnerships, seeking a synergy in objectives and activities, institutional culture for leadership and empowerment, and team work capacities and flexible organizations, are new institutional capabilities for enhancing innovation performance (ICRA, 2010). The capacity assessments results of the study show that the present capacities of local stakeholder organizations need to be improved. This is a gap identified by the study. The capacity of stakeholder organizations can be boosted through various capacity building interventions.
23
6 STAKEHOLDERS IN RURAL INNOVATION IN AMHARA REGION: HOW DO THEY COLLABORATE?
Rural development in Amhara Region is largely associated with agricultural development and natural resource management. For this reason, the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development has been given the responsibility to coordinate public organizations, NGOs, the private sectors, farmers, and input suppliers, that are all involved in different rural development activities of the region.
The stakeholder organization matrix is presented in Table 4. The linkage analysis indicated that only in 36% of the cases linkages exist, whereas there were no linkages in 64% of the cases. A rating of the degree of linkages formed showed that 19.0% of the linkages are very weak, 21.0% are weak, 19.0% are moderate, 22.4% are strong, and 19.4% are very strong. Among the 33 stakeholders organizations with whom individual and group discussions were held, the majority responded that they had linkages with the BoARD. The BoARD also responded that it had linkages with many of the stakeholder organizations covered in the study (Table 4). Besides the linkages made by the BoARD itself, its various centres (e.g. ASE, PHC, BDSL, AHL and ForE) had linkages with several stakeholder organizations working in the rural development sector of the region. Next to the BoARD, most stakeholder organizations were related to ARARI, suggesting that stakeholder organizations are involved in the research system. ARARI also confirmed that it had been working in close collaboration with a number of stakeholders organizations (Table 4). The stakeholder organizations that collaborate with ARARI also collaborate with at least one of its research centres (AARC, ALRC, AgMFSRC, and FALRC). As the regional government is concerned with rural development processes, it is linked with all types of stakeholder organizations (public organizations, NGOs and private sectors). More than half of the stakeholder organizations also mentioned that they were collaborating with the Regional Government.
Capacity building in rural development is crucial and hence 18 out of the 32 stakeholder organizations are working in association with the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences of Bahir Dar University. On the other hand, the college believes that it is working with only 10 of the 32 organizations studied. The College of Agriculture and Environmental Science of BDU has weak linkages with all other stakeholders organizations, apart from BoARD and FALRC. This could be due to fact that the College is relatively new (less than six years). Most of the rural development and innovation activities are conducted at grass root level. Therefore, the Zone and Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Offices had linkages with the majority of the stakeholder organizations (Table 4). More than 15 respondents are collaborating with BoWRD and EPLAUA. BoWRD and EPLAUA believe that they are collaborating with respectively 17 and 8 stakeholder organizations. Currently, the role of cooperatives in rural development is becoming significant. The Regional Cooperatives Promotion Agency (CPA) has many linkages with different stakeholders organizations, indicating that the importance of cooperatives in rural development is becoming recognized by many stakeholder organizations involved in rural development in the region. About 14 stakeholder organizations responded that they collaborate with WGZARDD, whereas WGZARDD responded that it collaborates with 22 stakeholders.
The private sector organizations involved in rural development in Amhara Region (ACSI, THFC, GAPC, KPSE, MFCU and WFPC) have linkages with few other stakeholder organizations except
24
Tab
le 4
. Sta
keho
lder
rol
e m
atri
x as
rep
orte
d by
res
pond
ents
invo
lved
in r
ural
inno
vatio
n in
Am
hara
Reg
ion,
Eth
iopi
a
25
for MFCU that has a relatively higher number of linkages (Table 4). This indicates a very weak and low number of linkages between public-private organizations despite the fact that the private sector plays an important role in rural development.
There were also no linkages among the private organizations covered in this study, indicating the weak tradition of collaboration among stakeholders organizations even when involved in similar sectors.
Amongst the NGOs (LOLE, ORDA, SARDP and SWHISA), ORDA has most linkages with stakeholder organizations involved in rural development in the Amhara Region as it is probably mandated to wider areas and many development sectors in the region. However, there were either very weak or no linkages among the NGOs covered in this study.
The AMMA is mandated to disseminate information in relation to rural development. In line with this, AMMA is trying its best to create linkages with organizations involved in rural development in the region and it responded that it created linkages with at least 10 stakeholder organizations that were covered in this study.
There was a difference in the response of stakeholder organizations about their linkages with others. As shown in Table 4, the row-wise and column-wise linkages are not exactly the same because of the different response of the stakeholders listed in the row towards those listed in the column and the vice versa. This indicates that stakeholders did not always recognize the organizations with whom they are working with. In most cases this is because of lack of formal partnerships. Regarding the strength of linkages among the stakeholder organizations, most are strongly or very strongly linked to BoARD as BoARD has the responsibility of coordinating agricultural and rural development activities in the region. However, some stakeholder organizations still have weak linkages with BoARD. The linkages of stakeholder organizations with ARARI is variable in that most are weakly linked with ARARI and only AMMA, ASE, AgMFSRC, FALRC, PHC, BoARD and SARDP have moderate or stronger linkages. As the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science of BDU is a young college, most of the stakeholder organizations are (still) weakly linked with it (Table 4).
Generally, the linkages among stakeholder organizations involved in rural development in Amhara Region is weak. This may be because there is no experience of sharing a vision among them, because of lack of awareness about existing platforms that bring stakeholders together, and/or because of lack of resources (both financial and physical). The weak linkages among stakeholder organizations or their absence despite the fact that they have many shared roles and interests may result in duplication of efforts and in waste of efforts and resource.
Stakeholder organizations were asked to identify type and rate degree of linkages or collaboration they had with others, using a rating scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). As shown in Figure 3, information exchange, knowledge sharing, joint planning, joint implementation and resource sharing moderately are more commonly practised forms of collaboration than joint monitoring & evaluation and joint publication.
26
Figure 3. The type and degree of collaboration practised by stakeholder organizations involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia
The only moderate level of information and knowledge sharing, joint planning and implementation and resource sharing observed in the current study is not surprising because most of the stakeholder organizations covered in the study have very much a hierarchal relationship. For example, seven of the studied stakeholder organizations have a hierarchal relationship with BoARD, and four have a hierarchical relationship with ARARI. Therefore, the type and degree of collaborations indicated in Figure 3 do not necessarily indicate the type of collaboration developed for the sake of partnership only. Nevertheless, the existence of such collaborations among sister institutions and the experience of using them indicate the opportunity of exploiting the experience for creating and developing the culture of partnerships among stakeholder organizations in rural innovation in the region.
27
Figure 4. The type and degree of communication means used by stakeholders involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Stakeholder organizations were also asked to identify the type of communication and rate the degree of communication they have with other stakeholder organizations. The stakeholders covered in the study make moderately use of meetings, reports, sharing of documents, informal means (telephone, email, relative, friendship and neighbourhood relations) and mail (letters) to exchange information among themselves (Figure 4). Informal ways of communication seem to relatively dominate which could be the result of strong social links that exist in the region. Although informal communication is important to create links and partnerships, some stakeholders criticize informal communication because they think it lacks transparency. The results of this survey indicate that the identified ways of communication may be further strengthened and used more effectively by stakeholders to create partnerships and bring the partnership to a level that is mutually beneficial and fruitful.
28
29
7 EXPERIENCE OF LINKING STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS IN ETHIOPIA AS WELL AS IN AMHARA REGION: WHAT ARE THE LESSONS LEARNED?
Technology generation as a main component of technology development and research coordination was started in the country in the 1960’s (EARO, 1998). Since then, technology transfer and linkage remained as peripheral responsibilities. Through the course of time, however, a number of efforts were made to improve technology transfer and linkage practices.
The Extension Project Implementation Department (EPID) of the Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) established in 1974, was the first of its kind to address a formal Research-Extension-Farmer linkage as an outreach programme under the Ministry of Agriculture. This joint programme was initiated mainly for package testing and formulation of research recommendations to specific areas. The programme was discontinued after three years in 1977, mainly due to budget problems (EARO, 1998). It was re-initiated in 1980/81, under the new name of Institute of Agricultural Research/Agricultural Development Department (IAR/ADD) with almost the same objectives as EPID. In this programme, IAR provided different technologies and technical support, whereas the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), through ADD, was responsible for financial and administrative support (EARO, 1998). Despite its weaknesses, the programme was the first to attempt to play a significant role in creating awareness on the importance of linkages between actors in rural innovation. The main problem of the programme was that it failed to sufficiently communicate and make site specific recommendations. Besides, due to lack of funds, researchers of the joint adaptive trials were not able to travel sufficiently to evaluate and handle the trials. The management of trials came on top of the normal duties of extension agents, and they lacked the experience and motivation to carefully handle the trials. There was also no efficient national coordination (EARO, 1998).
A Farming System Research (FSR) programme was initiated in the late 1970s in IAR (EARO, 1998) with multidisciplinary, informal survey teams, composed mainly of agricultural economists and agronomists, to identify agricultural production constraints. Joint technology generation by the survey team was optional (Melkamu Ayalew, Personnel Communication). In 1984, the programme was further developed with technical assistance from CIMMYT and financial support from IDRC. Later, a World Bank loan expanded its activities to the major research centres and FSR was institutionalized within IAR (EARO, 1998). The main contributions of the FSR approach to agricultural research in general, and to research-extension-farmer linkages in particular were to:
1. Provide plant breeders with information on the characteristics of technologies (varieties)
2. Provide researchers with information on farmers’ problems, give feedback to researchers concerning the performance of technologies
3. Formulate recommendations that are appropriate for small scale farmers.
30
In 1985, IAR established a Research-Extension Division (RED) with the initiation and financial assistance from the World Bank. The division played an important role in disseminating research findings to farmers, development agents and subject matter specialists.
The major problems and challenges faced by REDs were:
• Professional bias: verifications were handled by economists without any involvement of researchers working in the RED;
• Shortage of financial resources: the financial resources required for enhancing linkage strategies were often lacking because the activities were not budgeted;
• Shortage of manpower: there was an acute shortage of manpower trained in the field of extension, liaison management and participatory extension methods.
The Research and Extension Liaison Committee (RELC) was established in 1986 at both Zonal and National levels to enhance horizontal as well as vertical integration of research, extension and farmers. Zonal RELC was established along Peasant Agricultural Development and Extension Project (PADEP) zones. With the abolition of PADEP zones in 1989, RELC started in IAR research centres, thus, forming research centre-based RELCs. The primary function of the zonal RELCs was to review and approve research proposals and extension recommendations, identify training needs for subject matter specialists of the MOA and oversee the operation of research-extension farmer linkages in the respective zones, while the national RELC was responsible for overall policy direction and capacity building.
Even though efforts were made to bring different stakeholder organizations together in the RELC meetings to ensure effective research-extension-farmer linkage, they were not successful mainly because meetings were not regular. Apart from that, RELC was largely affected by frequent changes in the organizational structure of the MOA. The instability in organizational structure involved frequent deployment and reshuffling of committee members, and was accompanied by discontinuities of the linkage arrangements. Consequently, the resolutions and recommendations made during the RELC meetings were either lost or not carefully handled by incoming committee members for the next meeting as they were new in the position and sometimes even new to the workplace. Also, farmers were supposed to be members of the RELC. However, farmers have not participated in any of the RELC meetings. The absence of decision-making power by RELC, due to lack of legal authority, affected the activities and linkage strategy of the Council. Moreover, linkage activities were considered as part of the work and no incentives were offered to committee members. Being a committee member of RELC brought nothing but extra work. Because of all above mentioned reasons, the council was revised and another institutional arrangement formulated at national level to reduce gaps identified in RELC: the Research-Extension-Farmer Advisory Council (REFAC).
REFAC was adopted by ARARI in 2000 and it was composed of people from all hierarchic levels of the BoARD, farmer representatives, and Agricultural Universities/Colleges in the region. REFAC was responsible for the overall guidance of research and extension programmes, for the oversight of the linkage activities undertaken by the representative institutions at zonal level, and for linkage management (EARO, 1998). The council had a chair person and secretary. It had sub-committees/working groups like women farmers group, representatives of farmers research groups,
31
a resource management group, and a farming systems group. Meetings and field days were organized for the purpose of planning, monitoring and evaluation of activities.
Nevertheless, REFAC could not meet the expected results. It was found necessary to make a new institutional set up for the research and extension system to be able to enhance rural development in the region. Accordingly, a multi-stakeholder platform called Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council (ARDPLAC) was established in 2008, with financial support of the World Bank through its Rural Capacity Building Project (RCBP) to Ethiopia which has been put under the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). ARDPLAC established a similar organizational structure as the ones of MoARD, i.e. it is organised at National, Regional, Zonal and Woreda level.
In Amhara Region, ARDPLAC consists of about 37 stakeholder organizations at regional level (152 participants), 26 stakeholder organizations at zonal level (74 participants), and 24 stakeholder organizations (63 participants) at Woreda level, composed of agricultural extension service providers, researchers, farmers, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, input suppliers, credit suppliers, and private companies.
The results of group discussions and key informants’ interviews on the strengths and weaknesses of all previous attempts at enhancing rural innovation processes (mainly the ones of RELC and REFAC) are summarized in Table 5. As indicated by the respondents, the strengths of RELC and REFAC are that these forums have contributed to the improvements of linkages among research, extension and farmers. The forums also provided the opportunity to demonstrate and popularize technologies to farmers and other stakeholders on the spot. Farmers’ representatives had been participating, although at a low degree, and their presence helped identify researchable issues for grass root level problems. Information exchange in the RELC and REFAC forums was considered important by the respondents. In these platforms, agricultural development professionals from lower hierarchic levels (Woreda and Zonal level offices) were able to participate. They also created opportunities to capture different perspectives from stakeholders especially during research reviews and field days. Attitudinal change came about and gaps between research and extension were narrowed. The platforms were also useful to obtain feedback from stakeholder organizations.
The results of the group discussions, key informant interviews, and document review indicated that project-based initiation and financing of the platforms were the number one problems that affected the sustainability of platforms since the 1960. This was confirmed by most of the stakeholder organization covered in this study. The history of technology transfer and linkage practices in the country and in the region indicated that the platforms/initiatives were all financed by external donors and were implemented as pilot schemes without any guarantee for continuation afterwards. The Extension Project Implementation Department (EPID) and the Agricultural Development Division (ADD) were initiatives of the World Bank and funded by same. The Farming system Research approach was initiated and funded by CIMMYT and IDRC. When the Peasant Agricultural Development and Extension Project (PADEP) was abolished in 1989, RELC emerged by a push from the World Bank. RELC was later replaced by REFAC that was funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Bank. This showed that none of these attempts were financed either by national or by regional governments and that they were not institutionalized by Ethiopian institutions with exception of the farming systems research approach that still is being practised, mainly by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.
32
Table 5. Strengths and weaknesses of the Research-Extension Linkage Council (RELC) and the Research-Extension-Farmer Advisory Council (REFAC) in Amhara Region
Strengths Weaknesses
RELC REFAC RELC REFAC
• Brought extension on board and extension able to serve the research issues.
• Brought positive attitude of extension staff towards research during research field visits.
• Created a linkage between research-extension and farmers.
• Helped popularization of agricultural technologies and prioritization of research problems.
• Participation of farmers helped identify research problems
• Allowed exchange of information on the status of research activities.
• Helped display of available technologies to farmers and extension workers through research site visits and discussions
• Zonal experts and administrators were able to reflect on farmers problems.
• Enabled to identify research problems and transfer them to researchers
• Extension was able to serve the research issues better.
• Farmer involvement was very limited.
• Focus was given mainly to research issues while other issues were marginalized
• Dependent on projects finance
• Established and became functional around research center only
• No proper evaluation and documentation of efforts.
• Initiated from the top.
• There was weak linage and accountability among actors.
• There was no clarity on responsibility of actors (there was no clear procedure but common sense).
• There was no frequent meeting of Stakeholders involved.
• It was dominated by researchers.
• Less involvement of key stakeholders.
• Dependent on project finance.
• Participants were not committed as participation was mainly dependent on provision of per diem.
• No proper evaluation and documentation of efforts.
• Initiated from the top. In addition, poor participation of farmers and other actors in the platforms, absence of decision-making power of the platforms due to lack of legalized authority, poor documentation, lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities given to stakeholder organizations, lack of a monitoring and evaluation system, lack of incentives - especially for facilitators -, lack of institutional memory in the stakeholder organizations and in the platforms because of high turnover of staff and committee members, poor coordination/facilitation, professional bias and continued top-down approach were serious problems observed in the efforts of technology transfer and linkage practices. According to ICRA (2010), reasons for poor institutional linkage are weak management capacity, inappropriate organizational structure, unfavourable reward systems, constraints on time and money, inappropriate planning, little or no monitoring and evaluation of the process of interaction and different organizational cultures, expectations and operating procedures. The results of this study show that the weaknesses of earlier platforms were transferred to the next generation of multi-stakeholder platforms mainly due to the fact that new platforms were created without due evaluation of previous ones. Hence, any attempt that wishes to improve linkages and enhance multi-stakeholder rural innovation process in Amhara Region should consider and solve the problems indicated above but also strengthen existing and/or new platforms (e.g. Farmers Research and Extension Groups and ARDPLAC).
33
8 ENHANCING RURAL INNOVATION IN AMHARA REGION: WHAT IS THE ROLE OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PLATFORMS?
8.1 Stakeholder awareness about multi-stakeholder platforms
Many of the stakeholder organizations in rural innovation in Amhara Region know about multi-stakeholder platforms. About 59.3% of the respondents knew one or more multi-stakeholder platform(s) in the region; 37.0% of the respondents did not know any type of multi-stakeholder platform. Multi-stakeholder platforms mentioned include RELC, REFAC, ARDPLAC, GO-NGO forum, the Regional Pest Control Taskforce, Natural Resources and Agribusiness forums, and the Local Seed Business forum.
About 44.4% of stakeholder organizations are aware of the existence of the Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council (ARDPLAC), whereas 51.9% of the stakeholders have not heard about the council. The ones that are aware are either members of the council and participated in its meetings or they received the council’s needs assessment study report. About 83.3% of the stakeholder organizations who knew ARDPLC agreed with the current activities of the council. These organizations felt that the council was able to bring different stakeholder organizations together in one forum which they think is a good start.
8.2 Structure and roles of the ARDPLAC ARDPLAC was set up in 2008 by the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) of the Amhara Regional State under the Extension Service Process in the Community Needs and Problem Identification, Development Partners Linkage and Social mobilization Case Team, following a national initiative. The Community Needs and Problem Identification, Development Partners Linkage and Social mobilization Case Team has three roles:
1. Identifying community needs and problems, 2. Facilitating and creating linkage among stakeholders involved in rural development, 3. Social mobilization.
The BoARD has, therefore, institutionalized ARDPLAC in its Community Need and Problem Identification, Development Partners Linkage and Social mobilization Case Team, as shown in Figure 5. The same structure also applies at Zone and Woreda levels. This institutionalization of ARDPLAC in Amhara Region is the first of its kind where ARDPLAC is led by people drawn from different stakeholders as in REFAC and RELC, as compared to the experience in all other regional states of the country.
The goal of the Community Need and Problem Identification, Development Partners Linkage and Social mobilization Case Team is to improve the livelihoods of the farming communities through implementation of demand-driven research, problem-solving technology generation, and improvement of agricultural produce in quality and quantity. The objectives of the case team are:
• increase agricultural production and productivity through coordinated efforts of stakeholders in planning, implementation and evaluation, based on the needs and problems of the community,
34
• increase the farmers’ production and productivity by strengthening linkages of stakeholder organizations and by increasing their positive participation and contribution,
• bring agricultural development through creating strong linkages among stakeholder organizations to enable them to participate equally in technology generation, dissemination, and scaling up of good practices.
Figure 5. Position of the ARDPLAC under the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development, Regional level
Besides defining its objectives and roles, the Community Need and Problem Identification, Development Partners Linkage and Social mobilization Case Team document has clearly defined the roles of each stakeholder organization it considered important in the agriculture and rural development activities of the region (BoARD, 2008). The Case Team has identified 37 stakeholder groups with 160 members at regional level, 26 stakeholder groups with the number of members varying according to the size of the zone, and 24 stakeholder groups at Woreda level, the number of members also varying according to the size of the Woreda (BoARD, 2008).
As can be seen from the organizational structure (Fig. 5), ARDPLAC is one of the activities of the Community Need and Problem Identification, Development Partners Linkage and Social mobilization Case Team. The case team serves as a secretary of the council which has 160 members. Although ARDPLAC is a council, it is currently hosted by the BoARD as one of its responsibilities to bring different stakeholder organizations involved in rural innovation together in one forum.
BoARD
Regulatory (Quarantine)
Service Process
Natural Resource
Management Process
Input and Output
Marketing Process
Planning and Information Process
Extension Service Process
Technology Transfer Case Team
Input Multiplication and Private
Investors Advisory Case Team
Community Need and Problem Identification, Development Partners Linkage (ARDPLAC) and Social Mobilization
Case Team
35
8.3 Expectation of Stakeholders from ARDPLC
The stakeholder organizations involved in this study were asked to list down their expectations from ARDPALC. They identified twelve expectations which are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Stakeholder organization expectations from the Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Advisory Council (RDPLAC) in Amhara Region
No. Stakeholders expectations Percent of respondents*
1 Regularly updating list of key stakeholder organization involved in rural innovation 16.7
2 Encourage collective planning, monitoring and evaluation 25.0 3 Create attitudinal change and mutual understanding among stakeholder
organizations and promote the culture of partnership 33.3
4 Facilitate shared task division and responsibility among stakeholder organizations 16.7
5 Build the capacity of Woredas in MSP and needs identification 16.7 6 Create regular forums where all stakeholder organizations discuss rural
development issues 41.7 7 Facilitate problem identification at Woreda level 25.0 8 Promote common interest of stakeholder organizations 33.3 9 Clarify its roles at regional, zonal and Woreda levels 16.7 10 Harmonize rural development efforts and resources in the region 16.7 11 Create a sense of accountability among stakeholder organizations 16.7 12 Consumers should be considered as key stakeholders 8.3 *Percentages do not add up to 100 because of multiple responses.
The majority of the stakeholder organizations in rural innovation (41.7%) expect ARDPLAC to create regular forums where all organizations discuss rural development issues. Other major expectations are creating attitudinal change and mutual understanding among stakeholder organizations, as well as promoting a culture of partnership and common interests of stakeholder organizations (each 33.3%). About 25% of the respondents expect the ARDPLC to encourage collective planning, monitoring and evaluation, and to facilitate problem identification at Woreda level. Other respondent expectations (each about 17%) from ARDPLAC include:
• identification of key stakeholders involved in rural innovation regularly, • facilitation of shared tasks and responsibilities among stakeholders, • building the capacity of Woredas in multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) facilitation and
needs identification, • clarifying its roles at region, zone and Woreda levels, • creating a sense of accountability among stakeholder organization, and • harmonizing rural development efforts and resources in the region.
36
Stakeholder organizations from the consumer side also expect the ARDPLC to consider consumers as key stakeholders and involve them in its forums and activities. The stakeholder organization expectations listed in Table 6 are actually the current activities of the ARDPLAC. These results, therefore, suggest that the stakeholder organizations are not yet fully aware of the roles and responsibilities of the council, even if they know about its existence and about some of its activities.
The stakeholder organizations were also asked to list down the criteria which they thought important for an effective multi-stakeholder platform in Amhara Region (Table 7). The majority of respondents (59.3%) felt that stakeholder organization accountability and responsibility was the major criterion for an effective multi-stakeholder platform in the region. A participatory forum and the ability to create awareness and attitudinal change among stakeholder organizations in rural innovation were also cited as criteria for an effective MSPF by more than 48% of the respondents. Stakeholder organization commitment, effective planning and implementation, committed leadership, and capacity of a forum to lead and mobilize stakeholder organizations were mentioned as a measure of MSP effectiveness in the region by more than a quarter of the respondents. Other criteria, mentioned by less than 15% of the respondents, were organizational independence, informative, effectiveness and efficiency, incentives and rewards, effective communication means and strategy, regular meetings, and focus on community needs.
Table 7. Criteria recommended by stakeholder organizations for an effective multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) for rural innovation in Amhara Region
No Criteria recommended for effective MSPF Percent of respondents 1 Accountability and responsibility of stakeholder organizations 59.3 2 Strong monitoring and evaluation system 25.2 3 Participatory forum 48.1 4 Organizational independence 14.8 5 Commitment of stakeholder organizations 44.4 6 Awareness creation and attitudinal change among stakeholders 48.1 7 Committed leadership 29.6 8 Effective planning and implementation 33.3 9 Informative 3.7 10 Effectiveness and efficiency 7.4 11 Incentives and rewards 3.7 12 Effective communication means and strategy 3.7 13 Capacity to lead and mobilize stakeholder organizations 25.9 14 Regular meetings 3.7 15 Focus on community needs 11.1 16 Shared vision among stakeholder organizations 7.4 17 Mutual respect 7.4
*Percentages do not add up to 100 because of multiple responses.
The criteria suggested by the stakeholder organization for an effective MSP in Amhara Region were based on their experience on the drawback of earlier MSPs attempts in the region. For the stakeholder organizations it is clear that previous MSPs were not effective enough because
37
organizations were not responsible and accountable, because forums were not participatory (inclusive), and because of weak awareness creation efforts to bring about attitudinal change among stakeholder organizations, among other reasons. The criteria listed by the stakeholder orgnaizations for an effective MSP also indicate what ARDPLAC and other MSPs in the region should look like. According to the respondents, lack of stakeholder organization responsibility and accountability in multi-stakeholder platforms may arise as a result of lack of awareness and attitudinal change in multi-stakeholder platforms, poor planning and implementation of activities, lack of capacity of forums to lead and mobilize stakeholder organizations, lack of strong monitoring and evaluation system and committed stakeholder organizations. The stakeholder organizations also mentioned a shared vision and mutual respect as criteria for sustainable multi-stakeholder platforms in their region. These core multi-stakeholder values are only mentioned by a fraction of stakeholder organizations, however, indicating that many of the organizations are overwhelmed by the problems of previous platforms, rather than looking into core platform values.
8.4 Sustaining Multi-stakeholder platforms in Amhara Region The stakeholder organizations involved in this study were asked to give their views on how multi-stakeholder platforms, particularly ARDPLAC, could be strengthened and sustained in Amhara Region The results are in Table 8.. Table 8. Issues suggested by stakeholders to sustain ARDPLAC in Amhara Region
No. Issues suggested for sustaining ARDPLAC and other multi-stakeholder platforms
Percentage of respondents
1 Should have its own annual budget/logistics and should not be dependent only on project funding
48.1
2 Should have annual plan and strong monitoring and evaluation schemes 25.9 3 Should come out as a strong MSP facilitator 25.9 4 Stakeholders should be committed to work in partnership 18.5 5 Should install accountability and reward system 18.5 5 Should have its own rules and regulations (guidelines) 14.8 6 Learn from previous attempts and build on good practices 14.8 7 There have to be sub-sector platforms within ARDPLAC 14.8 8 Should be organized independently 11.1 9 ARDPLAC should have the required manpower 7.4 10 Address strategic issues 7.4 11 Cost sharing by stakeholders 3.7
More than 48% of the respondents suggest that allocating resources (annual budget and necessary logistics) will make ARDPLAC more sustainable than its predecessors (RELC and REFAC) which were entirely dependent on project funding. In fact, ARDPLC is currently funded by the national rural capacity building project (RCBP) which is financially supported by the World Bank. Therefore, it is true that unless ARPDLAC has its own annual budget, it will certainly face problems to sustain its roles and activities. Part of the current costs of ARDPLAC is also covered
38
through the extension service process (unit) of BoARD. As the activities of ARDPLAC are not organization-specific, some stakeholder organizations suggested sharing the costs of ARDPLAC among them. Although the idea of cost sharing is acceptable, other stakeholder organizations doubt the practicality of it because of difficulties in the modality of sharing costs among public institutions. More than a quarter of the respondents suggest that ARDPLAC could sustain itself by making its roles visible and effective through building strong a multi-stakeholder facilitation capacity, and through annual planning and monitoring and evaluation schemes. As mentioned in Chapter seven, one of the problems of MSPs in the Amhara Region is lack of commitment, responsibility and accountability of stakeholders. In view of this, stakeholder organizations suggested that by installing an accountability and reward system, making stakeholder organizations committed to partnership through regular awareness creation forums, having clear rules and regulations (guidelines) and building on good practices would make the ARDPLAC a sustainable multi-stakeholder platform. The individual and group discussions held with stakeholder organizations indicated that 100% of the organizations were committed to working with other organizations in partnership. Most of the stakeholder organizations state that, if they get committed organizations to partner with, they are willing to contribute the necessary human and physical resources for the partnership. Therefore, there is a high chance for ARDPLAC to use this motivated commitment of the stakeholders for its sustainability.
Approximately 11.1% of the respondents support the idea of organizing ARDPLAC as an independent institution that is accountable to the regional government. Some stakeholder organizations argue, however, that the idea of independently organizing ARDPLAC is premature because it is too young and not yet fully engaged in its activities, nor has it yet been evaluated for it. Currently, ARDPLAC is involving close to 160 stakeholder organizations in one platform at regional level. Some stakeholder organizations involved in the discussions of this study and many involved in the first workshop think that ARDPLAC will not be effective and able to manage such a huge number of stakeholders at once. They therefore suggested to have sub-platforms (e.g., on Natural Resource Management, Research and Extension, Marketing and Value Addition, etc.) within the main platform.
39
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study was the first of its kind in the region and in the country to focus on multi-stakeholder linkages and platforms, and it has revealed new information about multi-stakeholder platforms in Amhara Region. The study results indicate that ARDPLAC has exhaustively identified regional stakeholder organizations and also listed the role of each stakeholders in the platform. Because of its regional role, ARDPLAC listed almost all actors that are involved in the rural development activities of the region in one way or another as its stakeholders. This has led to many members of the council, which are probably difficult to manage in one platform. It was found that the stakeholder organizations covered in this study and listed in the ARDPLAC list operate at different levels with different capacities. Most stakeholder organizations have shared roles and interests and they need to create partnership/collaboration to facilitate rural innovation in the region. Moreover, the MSP facilitation capacity and experience of most of the stakeholder organizations needs to be be exploited to enhance and strengthen MSPs in the region and beyond.
Although there are strong linkages among few stakeholder organizations, there were either very weak or no linkages between the majority of the stakeholder organizations involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region. The weak linkages between most of the organizations or their absence does not match with the shared roles and interests of the stakeholder organizations observed, indicating the possibility of duplication of efforts and waste of efforts and resources. The stakeholder organizations that had linkages with other organizations practise the various types of collaboration (information exchange, knowledge sharing, joint planning and joint implementation) at an acceptable level, but there is need to strengthen joint planning and implementation, and joint publication.
Several multi-stakeholder platform attempts have been made in the country and in Amhara Region since the 1970s. Stakeholder organization consideration in the platforms increased from time to time and the different platforms played their own important role in bridging the gap between research and extension and in popularizing agricultural technologies. However, the subsequent platforms were not effective and sustainable, as new platforms were created without due evaluation of preceding platforms.
ARDPLAC has defined its roles and responsibilities and that of its member stakeholders organizations. However, it lacks a means of ensuring monitoring and evaluation and accountability. Although ARDPLAC has tried to popularize itself, only few stakeholder organizations know the council and its specific roles. There is also no clear task division between the ARDPLACs at regional, zonal and Woreda levels. Most of the financial support for ARDPLAC comes from a project fund. Stakeholder organizations expect ARDPLAC to be a viable and strong multi-stakeholder platform that is capable of facilitating rural innovation processes in the region.
Based on the results of this study, the team comes up with following recommendations to enhance rural innovation in the study region:
• Mainstreaming of the culture of partnership in the region through awareness creation and capacity building;
40
• Strengthening ARDPLAC by allocating its own annual budget, manpower and necessary logistics so that it can be effective and sustain itself. Although strengthening the council in its structural form is imperative for the time being, the idea of organizing an independent platform that is accountable to the regional government should be strengthened and plans be made.
• Clarifying the role and the vertical and horizontal relationships of the ARDPLACs at regional, zonal and Woreda levels and building the capacity of zonal and Woreda level ARDPLACs by the regional counterpart;
• Establishing issue-based sub-platforms under ARPLAC so as to strengthen linkages and collaboration among stakeholder organizations with shared roles and responsibilities and facilitate periodic discussions and decisions;
• Building the capacity of stakeholder organizations on system thinking, multi-stakeholder processes, soft skills, strategic planning, and monitoring and evaluation. This can be handled by BoARD by partnering with organizations that have experience in agricultural research for development (ARD) such as ICRA.
41
REFERENCES Adams, L. (2008). Introduction to Multi-stakeholder Partnership Processes: Summary of the ISOC
E-meeting. An Online Presentation of Multi-stakeholder Partnership Process, March 13, 2008. ISOC, Marratech.
Barney, D. (2004). The Network Society, Polity Press Ltd., ISBN: 0-7456-2668-8.
BoARD (Bureau of Agriculture and Rural development), (2008), Business Process Reengineering of the Extension Service processes of the Amhara Region, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
BoFED (Bureau of Finance and Economic Development), (2008), Major Growth Corridors for the Amhara Region (un published), Bair Dar, Ethiopia.
EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization), (1998), Research-Extension-Farmers Linkage Strategic Document, EARO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Figuères, Caroline M.; Tortajada, C., Rockström, J. (2003), Rethinking Water Management Innovative Approaches to Contemporary Issues, Earthscan Publications Ltd., ISBN: 1-85383-999-X.
ICRA (International Center for development oriented Research in Agriculture), (2010). ICRA Anglophone Programme Learning Materials. ICRA, Wageningen, the Nerherlands.
Habermas, J (1998). Faktizizät und Geltung. Beitrage zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des Demokratischen Rechtsstaats (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).
Hajer, M.A and Wagenaar, H., Eds (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding Governance in the network society, Cambridge University Press.
Rollof, J. (2007). Learning from Multi-stakeholder networks: issue focused stakeholder management. Journal of business Ethics (2008) 82: 233-250.
Kok, Jean-Luc de, Wind, H. G. (2003). Design and application of decision-support systems for integrated water management: Lessons to be learnt. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28: 220-28.
Röling, N., Woodhill, J. (2001). From Paradigms to Practice: Foundations, Principles and Elements for Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment, Background Document for National and Basin Level Dialogue, Bonn, Germany.
Warner, J.F. (2006). More Sustainable Participation? Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management. Water Resources Development. 22 (1): 15 – 35.
Warner, J.F. (2005). Multi-Stakeholder Platforms: Integrating Society in Water Resource Management. Ambiente & Sociedade, Vol. VIII, No. 2.
42
43
ANNEX 1 INSTITUTIONALIZING MULTI-STAKEHOLDER RURAL INNOVATION PROCESSES IN THE AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF A FIELD STUDY (15 MARCH – 22 APRIL 2010)
Introduction
Ethiopia, situated in the Horn Africa having about 80 million human population and 1.2 million square kilometers surface area, is of one the poorest countries of the world. Agriculture is the main stay of its economy, contributes about 60% of the country's GDP and employs more than 85% of the labour force. The production system is smallholder dominated agriculture practiced under rain fed condition. Agriculture is traditional and characterized by subsistence mixed farming with crop and livestock husbandry typically put under the same management unit. Despite the hard working nature of the farming population, the production system is backward and productivity is far too low. Farm power is exclusively underfed draught animals; mainly oxen although horses in some highlands are used. Irrigation and use of modern inputs such as fertilizers and improved seeds with accompanying technologies are extremely limited. As a result the country has been faced with chronic food shortages and malnutrition problem and has not been able to achieve self sufficiency to feed its ever increasing population which grows annually at the rate of 3%.
Nonetheless Ethiopia has an immense potential for the increase of its agricultural productivity both in crops and livestock. It is the centre of origin and diversity for many world important crops and livestock such Arabica Coffee, Tef, Sorghum, Barley, Casterbean, Fieldpea, Faba bean, Rapeseed, Nigerseed, Vernonia, Safflower, etc. It stands 1st from Africa and 10th in the world in terms of livestock population, which is about 41, 14, 13, 13, 0.3, 0.4 and 42 million of cattle, sheep, goat, horses, asses, mules, camels and poultry, respectively. Most of its soils are highly fertile and productive. Because of its wide altitude ranges (-110 m to +4600 m above sea level), the country possesses all types of climate from hot tropical to cold temperate and hence all kinds of flora and fauna are found in the country. A large portion of the country receives reliable and sufficient rainfall. The country has huge water sources including surface and ground water and sometimes it is known as the African tower of water. Many streams and rivers of the country like Blue Nile, Baro, Wabeshebele, Genale, Omo and Tekeze flow all-year-round down to the neighbouring countries.
Agricultural training, research and extension have been institutionalized in the country for more than 50 years, but they have not yet brought any marked differences on agricultural productivity and livelihoods of Ethiopian farmers. Indeed, research is reported to have developed many improved technologies both in crops and livestock, and has demonstrated very remarkable increase of productivity at station and on-farm levels. Limited dissemination and adoption of improved agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers has still been remained as a big challenge to the country in general and as an unresolved puzzle to researchers and extension workers in particular.
1. Institutional Framework
ICRA has collaborated with several Ethiopian Research Institutions and Universities in the past decade in field projects and in-country ARD learning programmes. Recently Haramaya University (HU) and the Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) successfully implemented a tailor-made capacity strengthening programme entitled “Agricultural Research Development, Implementation and Extension” with resource persons from ICRA, Bahir Dar (BDU) University and Agri-services.
All involved institutions are interested in forming a strong partnership to promote collective innovation processes within the Ethiopian national agricultural research system (NARS), in order to make agricultural
44
research more responsive to market, policy and environmental changes, more demand-driven and link with other actors of the innovation system.
Five Ethiopian professionals, 2 from research (ARARI), two from universities (HU and BDU) and one from Agri-services will attend the 2010 ICRA capacity building programme on “Multi-stakeholder processes for knowledge based rural innovation” to learn from each other and exchange and integrate their knowledge and enhance their capacity to support constructive change within and between their organizations.
The field study is part of that 14 weeks programme. A 6 week preparation period in Wageningen (The Netherlands) will provide participants with the necessary concepts and methods. The field study in the Amhara Region, which is the heart of their training, aims at putting those skills into practice in a real-life context. The Team conducting the field study is made up of professionals from that Region, originating from 4 main development players and active in the field of rural innovation.
The field study will be carried out as a joint activity between ARARI, Bahir Dar University, the Bureau of Agriculture and the International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), who have collaboratively drafted the present Terms of Reference. Other organizations are stakeholders in the field study and will be identified, further analysed by the Team and involved in the processes during the field study. Among them:
-Farmers’ organizations
-NGOs (ORDA, Save the Children Fund, Agri-Services, etc…)
-Projects and Programmes (GTZ, CIDA, etc…)
-Cooperatives
-Bureau of Water Resources Development
-Seed enterprises
-etc..
By closely involving all stakeholders in the field study, and through participatory methods, it is hoped that the field study will contribute to setting in motion a process that will continue after the end of the study.
2. Study period The field study will be conducted from 15 March until 22 April 2010, a period of 6 weeks. It will be preceded by one week of planning in Wageningen.
3. Background/Context The lack of institutional linkages is widely recognized as major a limitation of technology generation and dissemination in Ethiopia as in most of Africa. Generally the impact of agricultural research in these countries is very weak. The slow dissemination and adoption of improved technologies in Ethiopia can be associated with the following reasons:
1. Most research is conducted on the basis of researchers’ own diagnoses, with little consideration of farmers’ circumstances, and research might not properly address small scale farmers agricultural problems,
2. The same could be said about the extension system,
45
3. The linkages between research and extension are weak, 4. Both research and extension endeavours are little, if at all, oriented towards the market.
The slow dissemination and adoption of research results, as well as the limited impact of research and extension have been well realized, and different attempts have been made in the past to improve their processes so as to increase their impact. In the 80’s, farming system research was promoted to address small scale farmers problems. A Research-Extension Linkage Committee (RELC) was established at different levels to improve institutional linkages for better impact. However, RELC was constituted mainly of researchers and extension workers with the exclusion of farmers and other actors. Then in late the 90’s, with the inclusion of farmers, RELC was replaced with Research-Extension-Farmers Linkage Advisory Council (REFAC). REFAC was organized at national, regional and research center levels, and functioned for about 10 years. Apart from REFAC, other attempts were made to enhance the participation of actors in technology generation and dissemination processes. On-farm research was highly popularized in the early 2000’s with the participation of farmers, extension workers and researchers. With the establishment of different stakeholders fora for different commodities, attempts were also made to scale up technologies and some successful achievements were recorded. But, REFAC was also found to be incomplete. To include other relevant actors, it has recently been replaced by the Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Council (ARDPLC), also organized at national, regional, zonal and district levels with having secretariat office hosted at extension offices.
This field study will contribute to a better understanding of constraints impeding the success of such efforts and will propose ways to revive and consolidate them so as to make them more effective.
4. Geographical area and target population
The Team will be based in Bahir Dar, from where they will conduct their field study. The geographical area covered lies within the bounds of the Amhara Region, and the actual population is made up of all the stakeholders cited above. The Team will further specify and define more finely the population upon their arrival in the area.
5. Team composition
The composition of the team is as follows.
Name Gender University Disciplines
Melkamu Ayalew Seman M Bahir Dar University Plant science/Horticulture
Getnet Zeleke Jembere M ARARI - Andassa Livestock Research Center
Animal science/Non-ruminants
Demekech Gera F Agriservice Ethiopia Plant science/Plant breeding
Kindie Tesfaye Fantaye M Haramaya University Plant science/Agro-meteorology
Fisseha Moges Assegie M ARARI - Andassa Livestock Research Center
Animal science/Non-ruminants
46
6. Objectives of the field study and expected outputs
The main objective of the field study is to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of multi-stakeholder rural innovation in the Amhara Region. It will to provide ICRA’s partners (ARARI, Bahir Dar University, the Bureau of Agriculture) and other stakeholders with an analysis of present constraints to collective action in rural innovation and recommendations on measures likely to help facilitate that collective action in line with the national policy drive towards a greater consultation and common planning between development actors.
The study will attempt to provide stakeholders and policy makers with answers to the main questions below.
Guiding questions
Central question Secondary questions
Who are the actors involved in rural innovation in Amhara Region?
What are their present functions and capacities?
What relations do they maintain with each other?
What attempts have been made to strengthen rural innovation processes?
What incentives exist to support multi-stakeholder processes?
Did the Business Process Reingineering affect innovation processes?
What has been the impact of the Agricultural and Rural Development Partners’ Linkages Council (ARDPLC) and its predecessors (RELC and REFAC)?
How to enable the ARDPLC to fulfil its role?
How can multi-stakeholder rural innovation processes in the Amhara Region be strengthened and made more effective?
What other measures can be realistically envisaged to stimulate and support multi-stakeholder innovation processes?
The outputs expected from the study are the following:
• An analysis of the present state of the rural innovation scene in the Amhara Region • A description of the constraints faced by innovation actors, including communication problems • Recommendations for actions to strengthen linkage mechanisms between stakeholders likely to
improve innovation processes
47
7. Form of the final report
Before leaving the study area, the team will produce and hand over a draft report to ARARI, Bahir Dar University and the Bureau of Agriculture of not more than 50 pages including figures and tables.
8. Field study responsibility and provided means
The local liaison officer for the field study will be Mr Getachew Alemayehu (Phone: 0918010902). Other contact persons and helpers will be:
Enyew Adgo, Lecturer University of Bahir Dar (Phone: 0918765621)
Fentahun Mengistu, Director Amhara Research Institute (Phone: 0918706268)
These three persons will interact regularly with the study team. Mr Getachew Alemayu will be the priority team’s contact person. Soon after arrival in the field the team will present its field study plan. An introductory meeting with stakeholders (communities) will be organised. Regular interaction will be maintained between the study team and the responsible officers.
The results of the field study will be presented in the form of a draft final report. This will be discussed at a final workshop involving a larger audience of stakeholders. This workshop will be held approximately 5days before the end of the field study to allow incorporation of useful comments into the final version of the report before the team leaves Bahir Dar. Dr Nour Sellamna, appointed by ICRA as reviewer, will support the team in two occasions, for approximately 5 days on each occasion. The visits will roughly be at the beginning of the field phase and at the end to assist the team in the final workshop and report writing.
The team is collectively responsible to ARARI, Bahir Dar University, the Bureau of Agriculture & ICRA for respecting the terms of reference and for the means provided for implementation of the field study. Internal Management of the team is the team’s own responsibility. Within the limits specified in the terms of reference and in the budget, the team is free to decide its own approach, methodology, tools and work programme, as well as the use it makes of the means provided for the field study.
9. Collection and presentation of secondary data material
Secondary material that can contribute towards the preparation for the field study will be provided by ARARI, Bahir Dar University, the Bureau of Agriculture and other stakeholders. This material will be made available to the team members during the knowledge acquisition phase in the Netherlands and returned to its owners at the end of the field study.
10. Accommodation, transport and logistical support ARARI, Bahir Dar University and the Bureau of Agriculture will provide administrative support as needed to conduct fieldwork in the region. Logistical support and staff will be made available.
Three team members, who are professionally based in Bahir Dar, will not require accommodation. The costs of the two other team members’ accommodation will be covered by ICRA, within reasonable limits, if no other alternative is found.
48
ARARI will provide team working space (an office / meeting room) and a car for the duration of the field study. ICRA will cover fuel costs, minor car repairs and the driver’s per diem costs according to the standards applied by ARARI.
ARARI, Bahir Dar University and the Bureau of Agriculture will also make available conference facilities for the team’s workshops, and distribute copies of the final report to stakeholders.
Signed on Thursday 11 February 2010, in Bahir Dar
Dr Fentahun Mengistu
Dr Nour Eddine Sellamna
Representing ARARI, Bahir Dar University and the Bureau of Agriculture
Representing ICRA
49
ANNEX 2 LIST OF FINAL WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
No Organization/Institute Type of participating department/person
Number of participants
1 Amhara Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) 1. Head/Deputy head 2. ARDPLC Focal person 3. Extension process leader 4. Extension Experts
4
2 Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) 1. Director General 2. ARARI sector Directors (6) 8
3 W/Gojam zone Department of Agri. And Rural Development Head/Delegate 1 4 Agricultural Research Centers (Adet, Andassa, Rural
Mechanization, Fishery, Gondar, Sirinka, Sekota, D/Brehan) Research Center Directors 7
5 Bahir Dar University, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences
Dean, research and post graduate program vice dean 5
6 Regional cooperative agency Head/Delegate 1 7 EPLAUA Head/Delegate 1 8 Regional administrative office Advisors Economy sector 1 9 Amhara Mass Media Agency Radio/TV 1
10 Ethiopian seed enterprise Head/delegate - 11 ORDA Head/Delegate 1 12 Kokeb Private Seed Enterprise Head 1 13 ACSI Head/Expert 1 14 Land O’Lakes Ethiopia Head/Delegate - 15 SWHISA Head/Delegate 1 16 Agri Service Ethiopia (Merto Le Mariyam) Head/Delegate - 17 GTZ (Bahir Dar) Head/Delegate - 18 Sida Amhara Head/Delegate - 19 Wongele SS Animal Feed Processing Head/Delegate 1 20 Merkeb Farmers Union Head/Delegate 1 21 Guder Agro Industry Head/Delegate - 22 Food Security & Disaster Prevention Office Head/Delegate 1 23 Agricultural Inputs Supply Enterprise (AISCO) Head/Delegate 1 24 Genetu Machinery (PLC) Head/Delegate 1 25 Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda Agriculture and rural development
office Head/Delegate 1
26 Bahir Dar Animal Health Laboratory Head/Delegate 1 27 Bahir Dar Plant Health Clinic Head/Delegate 1 28 Bahir Dar Soil Laboratory Head/Delegate 1 29 Ghion consumers association Head/Delegate 1 30 SNV Head/Delegate - 31 Bahir Dar AI center Head/Delegate 2 32 Amhara Seed Enterprise Head/Delegate - 33 Tana Hike No 1 Fish cooperatives Head/Delegate 1 34 Amhara Forest Enterprise Head/Delegate 1 35 Members of Farmers Research Group FRG chair persons 6 36 Amhara Capacity Building Bureau Head/Delegate - 37 Amhara Water resource & development Bureau Head/Delegate 1 38 Voca Ethiopia Head/Delegate - 39 Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (B/Dar Branch) Head/Delegate - 40 West Gojjam ARD Head/Delegate 1
TOTAL 55
50
51
ANNEX 3 INTRODUCTORY WORKSHOP WELCOMING ADDRESS
ICRA Field Study in Amhara Region/Ethiopia First Workshop on 24 March 2010
ARARI, Bahir Dar
Welcoming Address by
Dr. Getachew Alemayehu Local Coordinator of the 2010 ICRA Field Study in Amhara Region/Ethiopia
Dear respected invited workshop participants, Dear Ladies and Gentle Men, It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the first workshop of 2010 ICRA field study in Amhara Region/Ethiopia. International Centre for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) is an international training center based at Wageningen in the Netherlands. The centre has 28-years training experience in both Anglophone and Francophone programmes. Many Ethiopian agricultural professionals including me, Dr. Fentahun Mengistu (Current Director General of ARARI) and Dr. Abera Deressa (Current State Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry) have been trained by ICRA. Recently ICRA has actively collaborated with ARARI and Bahir Dar University. Currently five Ethiopian agricultural professionals, Dr. Kindie Tesfaye from Haramaya University, Ato Melkamu Ayalew from Bahir Dar University, Ato Getnet Zeleke and Ato Fisseha Moges from ARARI particularly from Andassa Livestock Research Centre, and W/ro Demekech Gera from Agriservice-Ethiopia are attending the 2010 ICRA capacity building programme on “Multi-stakeholder processes for knowledge based rural innovation”. The training is totally a 14 weeks programme, 6 weeks for learning necessary concepts and methods and 1 week for field study planning and preparation in the Netherlands, 6 weeks for field study possibly in their country, and 1 week for presentation of their field study results in the Netherlands. Because of having active collaboration of ICRA with ARARI and Bahir Dar University, the Ethiopian team are hosted by ARARI and Bahir Dar University to carry out their field study in Amhara National Regional State (ANRS).
The team will carry out their field study on “Institutionalizing Multi-Stakeholder Rural Innovation Processes in the Amhara Region/Ethiopia” which appropriately fits with their training programme. Just before starting their study, it is necessary to conduct kick-off workshop in the presence of stakeholders at least their representatives actively involved in rural innovation processes. Besides, one more final workshop will be conducted to present the study results and get necessary feedbacks for final publication.
The main objectives of this first workshop are: 1. To introduce the planned field study to the main actors of rural innovation; 2. To exchange views and ideas among stakeholders actively involved in rural innovation processes; 3. To get necessary feedbacks from stakeholders; and finally 4. To enrich and sharpen the proposal
Therefore, you all invited participants, your active participation and contribution in this workshop are very essential for the improvement of the proposal. The study is indeed very important for all of us, while it aims at assessing the weakness and strength of currently existing multi-stakeholder processes of rural innovation, and eventually aims at recommending appropriate approaches for successful rural innovation. With this notice and message, I welcome you again to this important workshop and I wish us to have successful workshop!
52
53
ANNEX 4 INTRODUCTORY WORKSHOP OPENING ADDRESS
24 March 2010
Dear Participants,
Welcome to today’s important meeting on rural innovation called on by the ICRA team.
Innovation is defined as ‘a process by which an idea or invention is translated into a good or service for which people will pay. To be called an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy a specific need. Innovation involves deliberate application of information, imagination, and initiative in deriving greater or different value from resources, and encompasses all processes by which new ideas are generated and converted into useful products’
Central to rural innovation, which in this context agricultural innovation, is a coordinated effort whereby various actors/stakeholders work in tandem and in unison. Institutional linkage involves all actions required for ensuring the continuous flow of information, technology, knowledge and coordinate diverse tasks among actors and improve efficiency in resource use largely appreciating the importance of feedback. Agricultural research and extension services are two systems which are linked by information flow and feedback.
Why do research and extension services need to link?
• research and extension linkage influences the generation, dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies
• helps in identifying research problems, adapting the recommendations to local conditions and providing feedback to researchers about the innovations that have been developed.
• vital in the modification of technological recommendations and in initiating further research thereby enable new technologies and management practices to be suited to local ecological conditions; agricultural policy related decisions..
• affect directly the production and productivity of small holder farmers
• Without linkages, each actor makes little impact.
Lack of strong linkage among research and extension has been cited repeatedly as one of the major causes of country’s underdevelopment. In Ethiopia, the history of agricultural research and extension system goes back to nearly six decades back. Despite several attempts to strengthen the Research-Extension Linkage it has not still reached the level it is required to be. Since 2008, there emerged a platform referred to as Agriculture and Rural Development Partners Linkage Council (ARDPLC) which envisages a strong linkage among Agriculture and Rural development partners at Federal, Region, Zone and Woreda level councils. This forum brings together different institutions at different levels in the entire process of technology generation, multiplication, transfer, utilization and feedback.
The positive side of the present platform is that the extension service has taken the responsibility of organizing and facilitating the councils. Besides, the number of participant stakeholders has widened, it is highly decentralized in the sense that it is formed at Region, Zone and Woreda level, and is well
54
institutionalized as it is led by a case team under the extension process. However, the existing platform has still various deficiencies that need to be rectified.
We took the opportunity of the ICRA team, that evolved out of the partnership created among ARARI, BDU, BoARD and ICRA, to exert some effort on assessing the existing rural innovation (more specifically linkage) strategies and come up with relevant recommendations for improvement.
International Center for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) is a Netherlands (Wageningen) based organization that arranges short term trainings for partners in south. Accordingly, we have a team of 5 researchers (3 at ARARI, 1 at BDU, 1 HU, 1 Agri-service) who attended a short course in Wageningen for 6 weeks. The above said partners agreed to jointly host this team for 6 weeks period of time so as to put the skills the team members acquired into practice in a real-life situation. Therefore, we agreed the team to engage in studying the existing rural innovation in Amhara region, its problems and strengths and forward relevant recommendations. The team is supposed to gather data through various means of which stakeholders workshop is one. This is why you are called on today.
I hope all of you will provide the team with important inputs.
I wish you a successful meeting.
Thank you.
Fentahun Mengistu (Dr.)
Director, ARARI
55
ANNEX 5 FINAL WORKSHOP OPENING ADDRESS (AMHARIC)
56
57
![Rural urban linkages and public private partnership [compatibility mode]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/55a5ef3e1a28ab126b8b481a/rural-urban-linkages-and-public-private-partnership-compatibility-mode.jpg)
