Upload
george-alford
View
20
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Stakeholder engagement, innovation platforms and outscaling. Sabine, Lance, K atherine, Jan Dryland Systems East And Southern Africa IRT meeting, ILRI Addis, 21-23 October 2014. I IPs. Learning & change. Curiosity & passion Testing & evaluation Reflection. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Stakeholder engagement, innovation platforms
and outscaling
Sabine, Lance, Katherine, JanDryland Systems East And Southern Africa IRT meeting,
ILRI Addis, 21-23 October 2014
Smallholder farms as complex systems (Ostrom, 2009)•Dynamic, adaptive, non-linear•Social, economic, technical, ecological… dimensions •External factors can cause change, and change can happen from within
Resilience as ability of a ‘socio-ecological systems’ to adapt (Folke et al 2004 )• Reduce vulnerability to shocks and recover from shocks• React to change and make use of opportunities • Proactively create options and opportunities
Profitability for immediate livelihood benefits (Orr and Mausch, 2014) • = surplus over costs• Cash income, with markets as drivers for economic and social change
How can we use IPs in Dryland Systems?
Cup and ball model Van Rooyen, 2013
Geneticintensification
Modern technologies
Geneticintensification
Modern technologies
Ecological intensification
CL systems integration
Ecological intensification
CL systems integration
Socio-economic Intensification
VC development
+Production+ Income+ Nutrition+Environment…
Adapted from Van Rooyen et al (2013) , MPR (2013), Rufino (2009)
+
IPDefine pathways (gender)
Identify & test “quick wins”
Verify & adjust in context
Promote VC development
Contextualizing development pathways: Stakeholder engagement and innovation platforms
Stepping stones for farmers participating in local development pathways
After Dorward et al., (2010)
Farmers have different opportunities to adopt technologies and intensify production systems.
Better understanding farmers resource endowments and livelihood strategies leads us to multiple pathways within a given context
(Source: CIMMYT)
Marara districtHigh potential for market oriented livestock production
Manica districtHigh potential for crop livestock integration and intensification
Farming systems in Central Mozambique
Marara district
Manica district
Visions and opportunities
Market oriented livestock production
Vulnerable state
Resilient and profitable state
→ Weak social capital (internal/external)
→ Lack of land ownership
→ Lack of knowledge on crop livestock technologies
IP
Barriers + solutions
Household types(n=189)
Resource poor
Share of population (%) 12
Female HHH (%)Age of HHH (yrs)Education (yrs)Information indexOff-farm income (%)
88540.51035
Herd size (TLU)Cultivated land(ha)Herd offtake (ct, go,%)
1.91.41
CL integrationDiversified productionCash income (U$S/yr)
++
94
How feasible is it for farmers in Marara to step up?
Household types(n=189)
Resource poor Stepping up
Share of population (%) 12 41
Female HHH (%)Age of HHH (yrs)Education (yrs)Information indexOff-farm income (%)
88540.51035
8355.41466
Herd size (TLU)Cultivated land(ha)Herd offtake (ct, go,%)
1.91.41
1.22.3
10 /12
CL integrationDiversified productionCash income (U$S/yr)
++
94
++
338
How feasible is it for farmers in Marara to step up?
Household types(n=189)
Resource poor Stepping up Intensifying CL
Share of population (%) 12 41 47
Female HHH (%)Age of HHH (yrs)Education (yrs)Information indexOff-farm income (%)
88540.51035
8355.41466
12563.11744
Herd size (TLU)Cultivated land(ha)Herd offtake (ct, go,%)
1.91.41
1.22.3
10 /12
8.23.3
9 /16
CL integrationDiversified productionCash income (U$S/yr)
++
94
++
338
++++
475
How feasible is it for farmers in Marara to step up?
Household types(n=189)
Resource poor Stepping up Intensifying CL
Share of population (%) 12 41 47
Female HHH (%)Age of HHH (yrs)Education (yrs)Information indexOff-farm income (%)
88540.51035
8355.41466
12563.11744
Herd size (TLU)Cultivated land(ha)Herd offtake (ct, go,%)
1.91.41
1.22.3
10 /12
8.23.3
9 /16
CL integrationDiversified productionCash income (U$S/yr)
++
94
++
338
++++
475
How feasible is it for farmers in Marara to step up?
Safety nets
Food crops management
Goat flock building
Livestock as a business
Alternative land use options
Livestock market arrangements
Test and promote technologies
Represent farmers interests
Stepping back
• Using local opportunities to spark buy-in and development within its context (goats, beans, g’nuts VCs, PPPs)
• Working at on- and off-farm scales, e.g. through ML IPs, helps us to create conditions under which on-farm solutions can work – incl. infrastructure, (re-) organization, behavior change
• Engaging in the process we must re-define interventions, tailored to farmers particular circumstances and capacities.
“We farmers are now engaged in a common vision. We have a voice to express our needs, to partners who bring knowledge to us”.
• Understanding livelihoods
•Place based, contextualized approaches• Adaptive and participatory• Towards enabling environments• Multi-level
• engagement• analysis• learning
•Scaling out • Different options across range of contexts• Approaches to generate & promote innovations
Key principles for stakeholder engagement and IPs
1. How can science make IPs more effective?
2. How can IPs support outscaling?
3. What is to be done on the ground to engage in a functional IP?
Working questions
1. How can science make IPs more effective?
Self organization – nurture change management?
Iterative process of problem identification and solving, monitoring and evaluating livelihood benefits
Multi-level learning – methods, prototypes for nudging MLL?
IP Development Process• Focus area, and entry points • Stakeholder Analysis – Who should be there?• Roles and responsibilities – Why should they participate?• Development Objectives – What do we want to achieve?• Data Collection;
• PRA, HH surveys, • VCA Mapping and Analysis
• ID Production Challenges - What needs to change at farm level?• (All stages of production, harvesting post harvesting)
• ID Market Challenges - What needs to change at market/processing level?• ID Opportunities: Implement and test different options – MAKE the
changes!• Feedback to IP• M&E
1. INITIATE PLATFORM
7. ANALYSE AND LEARN
2. DECIDE ON FOCUS
3. IDENTIFY OPTIONS
5. DEVELOP CAPACITY4. TEST AND
REFINE SOLUTIONS
6. IMPLEMENT AND SCALE UP
START
Innovation platforms tend to follow a seven-step cycle
Linking innovation platforms vertically (across levels) and horizontally (with other platforms at the same level) has many benefits
District level: action on the ground
Provincial level: operationalize policies
National level:Influence policies,
negotiate access to new markets
Linking action at different levels through IPs
Central/Core PartnersMain Stakeholders; Continuous
participation{Farmers (ZFU), RDC, Buyers, AREX, DLPD, VET,
ZRP, Traditional leaders, Meat inspectors}
Input and support
ProcessorsMarket Intermediaries
Producers
Pol
icy
mak
ers
Con
sum
ers
Research
Developm
ent
Secondary PartnersIntermediate Stakeholders
Regular participation
Peripheral PartnersOutsider StakeholdersOccasional participation
Structure of the Innovation Platform
DevelopmentProcess
Activities & Outputs
Time
Establish IP and define roles and responsibilities
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Activities implemented by members
Activities implemented by members
Activities implemented by members
Project
Driven
Stakehold
er D
riven
Activities implemented by members
Sustainability M&E
M&E
M&E
M&E
Set Impact Indicators
IP and innovation systems(i) Learning to live with change and uncertainty: the IP evaluates
strategies to cope with changing environments and capitalize on emerging opportunities; seeking out positive change;
(ii) Nurturing diversity: by including a diversity of players and partnerships, the IP introduces diversity to increase livelihood options;
Agro-biological (crops & livestock and combinations), Economic opportunities, Institutional, support systems, knowledge
(iii) Combining different types of knowledge for learning: cross-scale dialogue between partners brings different types of knowledge and viewpoints and stimulates learning through the iterative evaluation of interventions;
(iv) Creating opportunity for self-organization: the functioning of the IP promotes self-organization based on production or market interests.