Doing things differently: Post-Harvest Innovation Learning Alliances in Tanzania & Zimbabwe
Brighton Mvumi, Mike Morris, Tanya Stathers, William Riwahttp://www.nri.org/PHILA/
Background (1)
• Common denominator for research team was the problem of storage insect pests:– livelihoods of rural households in sub Saharan
Africa undermined by storage insect pests; – many farmers rely on imported organo-
phosphate-based pesticides to protect stored grain; safety and efficacy of these chemicals in doubt;
– households using traditional control materials are faced with inconsistent and often poor results;
Background (2)
• Appropriate technology (hardware) solution:– Diatomaceous Earths (DEs), inert fossil dusts,
can be admixed with grain– Function by causing insects to dehydrate & die
• Research established that: – DEs (imported & local) efficacious as grain
protectants in range of Agro-Ecological Zones;– DEs readily usable by diverse smallholders in the
different locations;– food stocks (maize, sorghum, beans & cowpeas)
successfully protected for periods of > 8 months.
Background (3)
• Getting DEs into use amongst rural HHs requires a multitude of changes in the institutional setting: – Farmers & extension staff have to fully
understand the limitations and dangers of existing protectants,
– Advisors have to be influenced & to recommend policy and regulation changes,
– Registration authorities need to be persuaded to ‘buy into’ and support research findings,
– Private sector needed to step forward and champion the registration process
The Problem
• Why do things differently?– Conventional approaches to technology
transfer within small-scale farming systems have frequently failed – DEs yet to take off;
– HH food security remains precarious for many people in the rural areas and food production levels show little or no increase;
– PH service provision & research focus on technology; less on understanding delivery system constraints, distinguishing between needs & priorities of different HHs, exploring farmers’ own research capabilities;
The Opportunities (1)
• Innovation system thinking, which recognises that:– new products and processes are brought into
use, not just by the activities of researchers , but through the activities of a number of widely different actors and organisations;
– translation of ideas into use requires • appropriate technologies, • compatible mindsets and • favourable institutional settings
The Opportunities (2)
Training
Processing / Post-harvest
Business services e.g.
credit
Marketing
Input supply
Advice
Livelihoods of farming households
Public research (conventional) & link to extension
Private research e.g. cellphone banking
Private research e.g. seeds
Access to productive resources
Infrastructure
Technology
Mediating institutional arrangements & policies
Facilitation by local organisations
(NGOs, farmers groups, local government) Registration & regulation
of storage pesticides
Innovation system from farmer’s perspective
The Opportunities (3)
• Learning Alliances (LAs) provide for alignment of the key components of innovation:– hardware – appropriate technologies; can be
indigenous or imported;– software – action research to develop compatible
mindsets and adaptive capacity;– system-ware – to address constraints in the
institutional settings, outside the remit of conventional research approaches.
Learning Alliance functions (1)
• Information sharing amongst membership:– stakeholder workshops, documentation, ICTs
& regular communications, website etc.
• Action research (case studies) to:– develop specific understanding of supply-side
& demand-side issues;– develop compatible mindsets between
partners, and local adaptive capacity – learning by doing
Learning from evidence(rational, universal,
best practice, linear)
Both approaches used in Case Studies, but action research develops ‘in tune’ mindsets
After: Barabara Adolph
Learning from practice and interaction (intuitive,
contextual, adaptive, interactive, experiential)
Conventional Research
Action Researchvs.
Learning Alliance functions (2)
• LAs are influenced by and seek to influence the institutional environment – the rules & play of the game – including:– policy agendas, content & implementation;– R & D programmes;– staffing arrangements;– access to and use of ICTs
• Management of information sharing, action research & advocacy functions.
Achievements (1)
• PHILA members are relating & learning together in new ways– PHILA established in Tanzania & Zimbabwe– New CS tools & techniques shared & adopted– ICT training & promotion– New awareness & understanding of the need
for institutional learning & change (i.e. system-ware & software)
Achievements (2)
• Practical insights & recommendations for service provision developed, based on:– Study of public service providers & research – Studies of public service & NGO service
provision – Participatory planning exercises in 4 districts– Farmer & extension staff exchange visits– Enquiry visits to explore farmer diversity– Review of policies, their formulation &
implementation
Achievements (3)
• Understanding of ability of different stakeholders to access & utilise information:– Individuals in many farming households in
multiple locations familiar with better storage practices (e.g. application DEs, ASD etc)
– Exchange visits explored farmer-to-farmer & farmer-extension staff learning
– Empowerment studies throwing light on demand-led approaches
– Study of agro-chemical companies & public service providers
Persisting Challenges (1)
• Establishing LAs involves high front-end transaction costs– donors do a lot of policy pushing but are slow
to pick up implementation costs
• Innovation is essentially about changing institutional & social relationships– but is often confined to hardware; information
is misconstrued as knowledge; knowledge management defined as technology uptake
Persisting Challenges (2)
• Conflict inherent to rule (/inst.) change– The elite will resist rule changes; use ‘poor’
communication to exclude other players etc.– private sector players, typically busy & cost-
aware, are often reluctant to participate, have competing interests.
• LAs need to build on existing platforms (parallel structures are out) which do not flag learning – building trust is better than subversion, but time
consuming & usually costly.
Persisting Challenges (3)
• LAs are about changing the dynamics within and between organisations, but– rely heavily on the skills & energies of
individuals– documenting process learning is difficult
• If they are to have sustained impact, then– LAs need to influence policy makers and
other key stakeholders– LAs need to secure buy-in (membership) from
policy makers and other key stakeholders
The Future• LAs offer a strategic approach to providing
services which are demand-led, client-oriented, empowering etc., but– continued support from the R&D communities
and donors, essential;– commitment of statutory authorities (e.g. line
ministries, local government), essential;– involvement of private sector, essential; and,– representation of diverse farmer-types,
imperative