1. « Présence Globale, Impact Local »
36 pays
SNV Siège
1970: La SNV
s’installe au
Burkina Faso
1

2. SCIENCE WEEK
3-5 july2012
Innovation Platforms for Value Chain
Development: Experiences from Ghana and
Burkina Faso
Presented by:
Hubert W. SOME hsome@snvworld.org
Balma Yakubu Issaka balma32@yahoo.com

3. OUTLINE
1.Value chains Vs MSPs
2.What is an innovative platform?
3.Innovation Platforms & action research
4.Challenges of IP implementation
5.Postioning the Action Resaerch in the IP
6.Way forward
7.conclusion
3

4. What are Value Chains?
• End market
International Market
• Vertical linkages
• Horizontal linkages
Global markets
Domestic market
• Supporting products
& services
• Business enabling
environnement
Export
Wholesale
Processing
Supporting Products Services
(finances, transport, training,etc)
Producing
Input supply
4

5. IP to create a logic change
5

6. What are Innovative plateforms?
•
Instruments that have emerged in
response to growing body of
“natural &/or traditionnal”
relationship at local level
•
Culture /
Spirituality
Community (with various actors)
set up relationship, developed
tools, rooted in an understanding
needs and willpower to engage
Conservation
and
Sustainable
Use
gov‟t and other stakeholders to
secure community wellbeing
•
Identify/Develop/adapt best fits to
address a number of key challenges
Natural
Resources
Territory
6

7. IP an other MSP
High power
inequality
Low power
inequality
Negotiation (at best)
Dialogue
MSPs in this context run
into problems:
- Difficult to find common
goal
- Conflicts
hard
to
manage
MSPs in this context are
suitable:
- Common goal is present,
or is within reach
- Ingredients for learning
among stakeholders are
present
Facilitators at risk of
becoming
go-between
factions; and take over
roles of stakeholders
Facilitators can concentrate
on
supporting
dialogue,
learning, innovation
7

8. Challenges of implementation of the IP
a) Stakeholders are not convinced
with the approach and are still in
the old system
b) The stakeholder have more
demand out of communities
capacities
c) Needs are not clearly
defined and agreed in
the community
d)Lack of willpower
8

9. Positioning IP
in multi-stakeholder processes
Community
internal ongoing
dialogues on
BCP
researchers
Mutistakeholders network
traders
processers
R4D
Whole saler
Action Research
Participatory approch program
Producer group
IP
Internal stakeholders
No collaboration
(yet) as an MSP with
external stakeholders
Negotiation
Ability to deal
with power
dynamics will
reduce conflicts
Collaboration
External stakeholders
MSP space to move from negotiation to
dialogue
Conflicts over
various interest
more often on the
left side
High power
inequality
Value chains
more often on
the right side
Mediated
power
inequality
as an MSP with
external
stakeholders
IPDialogues
Ability for
joint
learning
9
Engaging with ABS will improve dialogue and
get community willpower improved with VCD &
IP

10. What is a community for the purposes of a IP?
 Community members have to
Shared
activity
be specialized in their
activities
 Each member has to focus on
the relationship with others in
the vertical line
Collective
decision
making
Shared
values
Community
 Commununities have to share
same values: gender issues,
governance, equity,
sustainability
Common
cause
10

11. From the IP to
the action research
•
How can communities
Implementing,
M&E
Crop & livestocks’
subsector gived by V2
proposal (ILRI)
(IP actors) be sure
that:

their needs are
V2 EFFECTS
Programming at
large scale level
the best ones
VC selection by
the actors (IP)
Subsector Analysis by
a consultant (SNV)
Beneficiaries
relevant
 their practices are
Training on
VCD by ILRI
Learning
alliances
Commercially
Viable solutions
livestocks production
Upscalling
strategieS
VC analysiS by actors (IP)
SNV
 the best fits can
improve crops and
VCD
TRAINING
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Upgrading strategies
framework and planing
SNV
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Action Recherche
INERA/ARI
11

12. HOW V2 HAVE EXPERIMENT THIS MODEL OF IP
12

13. HOW TO ENSURE THAT IP FOR AR FACILITATES
ABS & ACTORS LEARNING
• What is the situation is V2:
 The process
 The outputs
 The outcomes
 The chalenges
• Way forward
13

14. Key Questions
 How do we measure the performance of IPs and what factors
influence this?
 How do IPs affect the performance of VCs?
 In which circumstances do IPs lead to more sustainable and
equitable benefits for VC actors?
 How do the context and crop-livestock species/systems affect
the functioning of the IPs and consequently, the VCs?
 What factors influence the sustainability/replicability of Ips?
 What are the implications of the above on project design and
implementation?
 Which tools are affective for M&E of IPs and livestock VCs?

15. Role of the IP in Prioritizing the Action Research Issues
• IP1: Value chain analysis and initial analysis of constraints
• IP2: Further analysis of constraints with focus on rainwater
management and related strategies
• IP3(ARI): Development of Action Research Protocol
• IP4: Review of the process and development of action plan for the
season

16. Key Results
Outputs
Role of the
facilitator
Role of the
IP
Results
Challenges
Baseline
characterizatio
n and
participatory
inventory of
RMS
Value VCA &
SWOT
focusing on
RMS; setting
IP
PRA
Validation of
VCA, identifying
VC, defining
strategies
VC actors draft
their strategies to
adress their
constraints
• Time spent is more
than planned
Targeted RMS
recommendati
ons for
different
actors and
contexts in
mixed croplivestock agroecosystems
Multistakehol
der facilitation
(MSP);
Development
of Action
Research
Protocol
(ARP)
Prioritizing &
implementing
activities:Drough
t, soil fertility;
animal feed in
dry season;
Animal disease &
mortality
•Shared
understanding on
the issues to be
addressed and
the modatility for
implementation
• Fund for inputs
•Actors are
implementing
activities
• Limited capacity of
the IP to implement
strategies
• Market access
• Land tenure issue
• Access to technical
services
• Capacity to
document
16

17. Key Results
Outputs
Role of
the
facilitator
Internal
and
external
communic
ation
MSP,
designing
tools, follow
up IP
decision &
activities
Supplying
inputs for
ARP
From all VC
actors
meeting to
representativ
es meeting
Identifying
needs,
organizing
workshops
Needs on
business
plan, land
law,
negociation
skills
Capacity
building
Role of
the IP
Results
•Actors are able to
negociate with various
stakeholders
•Review & proposed
modification of PAR
activities
•Clear strtategies to
address tech. &
institutional challenges
outside PAR protocol
Actors have recognized
and articulated their
capacity needs
Challenges
Legality & legitimity of
the IP to discus with
stakeholders &
financial servicies;
Cost of meetings;
capcity of
representatives to
organise village
meeting with others
How to transfer
knowledge to others
in the community
17

18. Conclusion
• IP provides a way forwards to improved agricultural production &
livelihood through improve stakeholder participation in action
research
• Translating IP decisions into VC outcomes
• Constraints along the VC are largely institutional rather than
technical
• IP has enhanced collaboration among actors
• High expectation among IP participants
• Sustainability
 Active farmer participation vs Institutional „sluggishness‟
 Organizational form: formal or informal

19. WAY FORWARD
• The upcoming learning alliance is a means to resolving some of
the capacity challenges
• Analyse and address:
 Actor willingness to participate in IP
 Lack of capacity among actors in terms of means, knowledge,
behaviour, and ability
•
Adopt strategies to deal with the high expectation generated by
the project
19

20. 20