INNOVATION PLATFORMS:Evaluating functioning, outcomes and

contributions to agriculture development in the Lake Kivu Region

Pamela PaliJ. Njuki, R. Buruchara, W. Chiuri, J. Mugabe, M.M. Tenywa, J. Tukahirwa, I. Kasheija, C. Ngaboyisonga, S. Mapatano

1

OVERVIEW

1. Background:

2. The context: SSA-

CP

3. Methods & Tools

4. Results

5. Conclusions

2

BACKGROUND

Research oriented evaluation – Policy

Empowerment evaluation Evaluation concepts, techniques and findings are

institutionalized by program stakeholders through iterations of action, reflection and learning cycle.

Characteristics: Participative, collaborative, democratic and

accommodative to program shifts.

3

The Context of EE

sub Saharan Africa Challenge program (SSA-CP) Integrated Agricultural Research for Development

(IAR4D) Innovation Platforms (IP’s) Why?

Is IAR4D feasible; cost effective in comparison with other approaches, and consequently, it can be scaled out.

SSA-CP is using IP’s as implementation models - to

prove whether IAR4D concept is superior in comparison

with conventional approaches.4

Innovation Platforms

(IP’s) IP’s bring together a range of stakeholders,

technologies and co-ordination procedures to generate innovative solutions to challenges.

Outcomes = f (establishment, functioning, technology use, mkt access)

M&E of IP’s are a critical component to assessing the IP establishment, functioning, outcomes and extent to which IP’s are practicing IAR4D, farmer field processes, and replicability

5

6

7

Theme: Approach for establishing functional innovation platforms developed Indicator Data Tools

Extent to which different actors with a stake in the issue including male and female farmers are represented and active in the platform.

Extent to which IP partners have participated and are aware of the vision and have clear roles and responsibilities for achieving the vision

Site, community and household characteristics

Innovation process characteristics

Knowledge, behavioural, market, productivity, environmental and welfare outcomes

FGD’s,

SA

Baseline questionnaire

Activity reports

Indicator Data ToolsChanges in patterns of interaction, linkages and social capital (bonding, linking and bridging among IP actors

Quality and consistency of participation in IP activities

Level of awareness and access to information on critical issues (NRM, technology, market, policy etc) and operational issues (budgets, expenditures, guidelines, decisions and resolutions)

Frequency of meetings to discuss and plan

Level of interactions, information sharing, joint planning and networking between organizations in the IP site

IP actors participating in IP meetings and activities

Knowledge of IP actors on the decisions, guidelines, expenditures

Stakeholder analysisSNA

Activity reports

IP attendance registers

Indicator Data to be Collected Tool to be used

IP formation

Guidelines for establishing IPs tested

Steps followed in establishing the IPs / process/ challenges

IP establishment protocol

IP has a well articulated common objective, issue being addressed and roles are well defined

Presence of common objective IP actors awareness and perceptions of the issues, their relevance /importance to them

IP evaluation tool

IP functioning

Knowledge sharing channels Types of information, Channels and the mediaEffectiveness of information sourceReach of knowledge channels

Inventory of knowledge sharing tools and media and their reach

Planning Action Reflection cycle

IP Plans, Extent to which they have been achieved (scores/scale), Lessons learnt,Adjustments made, Actors perceptions of the functioning of the IP (scores/scale)

After Action Review

IP outcomes

Significant changes among IP actors / and or their organizations as a result of participation in the IP

Positive and negative changesIndividual changesOrganizational changes

MSC

8

Establishment of functional IP’s

•7 IPs Established

•Average 4 meetings•IP’s meet monthly•IP Committees manage IP meetings•100 USD given to IP’s as operational funds•Discussions: Rules of engagement, workplans

9

10

CountryDistrictTerritoir

e

Sub countySecteur

Groupment

Market Access

Name of IPDate of initiati

on

Uganda Kisoro Chahi GoodChahi ifatanya bu basha meaning together we can succeed.

06/11/08

Uganda Kabale Bufundi Poor Bufundi IP07/11/08

Rwanda Burera Rwerere PoorGerakuntego Rwerere meaning to achieve the vision

25/11/08

Rwanda Rubavu Mudende Poor

Huguka Mudende meaning increase knowledge. Brainstorming and the suggestions. Retained the name which matched well with the vision.

26/11/08

Rwanda Musanze Gataraga Good Isangano27/11/08

DRC MasisiMupfuniShanga

Good

Musanganya ya Mupfuni Shanga meaning to put everybody together or where people are put together.

12/12/08

DRC Rutshuru Kisigari Poor Muungano28/01/09

IP’s established in LK PLS

11

IP Establishment

12

Establishment of functional IP ’s

13

Functional IP’s

1. Process of establishment captured by the activity report

2. Activity report resulted in the use of improved methods in Rwanda and DRC

IP scoping

prioritization of results of SA methods – Voting by show of hands

in Uganda was improved to pair wise ranking Rwanda and DRC

logistical arrangements for meetings – Rwanda/ Uganda

Simple and versatile – used by all stakeholders at different

levels 14

Challenges articulated by IP’s

15

Name of IP Challenge articulated by IP’sChahi ifatanya bu basha

To produce high quality Irish Potatoes in large quantities

Bufundi IP Insufficient knowledge and inputs for conserving soil fertility for increased production of Irish potatoes, fruits and livestock

Gerakuntego Rwerere

Erosion and insufficient knowledge

Huguka Mudende Poverty generated by insufficient knowledge in farming (agriculture and livestock activities)

Isangano Insufficient fodder; erosion and no clean seed for mainly potatoes and maize.

Musanganya ya Mupfuni Shanga

la réduction de la pauvreté; la nutrition des enfants et l’amélioration de l’éducation, Promouvoir l’épargne, les installations de stockage disponibles, l’amélioration de l’habitat, la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle, l’augmentation de la production et le marché à bon prix.

Muungano la sécurité alimentaire, le logement confortable, le rendement de haricots jusqu’à 30 sacs (100 kg/sac) par Ha, l’augmentation de routes de dessertes agricoles et de l’élevage

Prioritized ResultsName of IP Prioritized resultChahi ifatanya bu basha Low soil fertility

Pest and diseasesBufundi IP Lack of agricultural inputs

Insufficient agricultural information and illiteracy

Gerakuntego Rwerere Insufficient capitalErosion

Huguka Mudende Insufficient knowledge Insufficient credit

Isangano Insufficient CapitalInsufficient knowledge

Musanganya ya Mupfuni Shanga

une connaissance insuffisante de techniquesUn mauvais accès au marché et un bas prix sur le marché (imposition du prix par l’acheteur)

Muungano baisse et faible fertilité des sols maladies des plantes et des bétails

16

Challenge & Opportunities of EE tools

OPPORTUNITIES Facilitate shared

vertical and horizontal learning

Cut across geographical, language, boundaries

Simple and versatile

CHALLENGES Farmers may

become data collectors

Distortion of meaning due to various languages used

17

Conclusion

The use of empowerment evaluation tools in M&E, contribute to a richer, more refined impact evaluation in the proof of concept of IAR4D

18

THANK YOU

FOR LISTENING

19