innovation platforms for increasing impact of research in mozambique & india

Partnering and learning for impact

Innovation Platforms for increasing impact of research: Collaborating with partners and

stakeholders

Image can be used in place of a sub title.

You can change this image to be appropriate for your topic by inserting an image in this space or use the alternate title slide with lines.Note: only one image should be used and do not overlap the title text.

[delete instructions before use]


Acknowledgements


What is innovation?

• It is the creative use of new or existing ideas, technologies or ways of doing things in response to social and economic needs and opportunities. Innovation can only thrive in a sound institutional environment.

• Mostly innovation is incremental and not completely new. E.g. smartphones.

• Areas it covers: • Technology

• Institutional / organizational

• Policies (favorable environment)


Stylised innovation system

Source: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems


Changing approaches to investing in innovation capacity

Early 1980s and beyond -

•Bricks and mortar. The period before the mid-1980s emphasized expanding public sector research by investing in physical infrastructure, equipment, and human resource development. In many cases the investments created centralized national agricultural research systems (NARS).

Late 1980s

•Management systems. From the late 1980s the emphasis shifted to improving the management of existing public sector research organizations through better planning, improved financial management, greater accountability, and increasing the relevance ofprograms to clients

Mid- to Late1990s

•Down to the grassroots. In the mid- to late 1990s, the instability and inefficiency evident in many public research organizations led to an emphasis on development of pluralistic agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKISs) with greater client participation and financing.

Current

•Innovation systems. More recently, the Bank’s approach has moved towards the concept of “agricultural innovation systems” (AIS) and focuses on strengthening the broad spectrum of science and technology activity of organizations, enterprises, and individuals that demand and supply knowledge and technologies and the rules and mechanisms by which these different agents interact.

Source: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems


Research into Use - Findings by Hall (2011)

• As few as 1-2% of 1600 research projects were suitable -> research investment fails to result in innovation and impact if it relies soleyon technology transfer or new technology is the starting point

• Implementation leads to new research questions which are often about political and institutional contexts

• Research plays a different role at different times on the innovation trajectory.

• Research use is part of a wider process of innovation


Research into Use -Findings by Hall (2011)

• Innovation emerges from networks of interacting players and associated policy and institutional developments that support chains of actors

• RIU needs development of innovation capacity.

• Involves linking different organisations, tackling policy bottlenecks and creating policy and institutional conditions that enable innovation process and make them more responsive to economic, social and environmental ambitions of society

Often it is about making opportunities out of existing ideas.... Not new technologies


What is a mechanism used

• Innovation is the result of learning that emerges from key stakeholder networks that work together in an innovative way (institutional arrangements) .

• The space where these actors can come together and interact is called an Innovation Platform (IP)

Innovation systems :

• A network of actors (individuals or groups) that interact to produce , share and use knowledge .


Stakeholders in an innovation platform

Researchers

Smallholder producers

Processors / traders –private sector

Consumer

Local & provincial government

Extension

?

?

??

? ?

?

Other possible players:

• Agrochemical representatives

• Credit providers

• Output markets

• Policy makers

• etc.


Innovation Platforms

ILRI Practice Brief #1• An innovation platform is a space for learning

and change. It is a group of individuals (who often represent organizations) with different backgrounds and interests: farmers, traders, food processors, researchers, government officials etc.

• The members come together to diagnose problems, identify opportunities and find ways to achieve their goals.

• They may design and implement activities as a platform, or coordinate activities by individual members. 10


Types of IP’s

• Sector based

e.g. Environmental,

value chain, agricultural

• Explores high risk or controversial issues at national level or international level to influence policy

International

• Aim to influence policy processes

• Aim to negotiate access to national and international markets

National

• Usually where policies are operationalised

• Monitoring of policyIntermediate

• Aim to generate action on the ground

• Focus on communitiesLocal


Linking innovation platforms vertically (across levels) and horizontally (with

other platforms at the same level)

Tucker, J., Schut, M. and Klerkx, L.. 2013. Linking action at different levels through innovation platforms. Innovation platforms practice

brief 9, November 2013


7 Stages of an IP

Source: Homann-Kee Tui, S., Adekunle, A., Lundy, M., Tucker, J., Birachi , E., Schut, M., Klerkx, L., Ballantyne, P.Alan Duncan, A. , adilhon, J. and Paul Mundy, P.(2013) What are innovation platforms? Innovation platforms practice brief 1, November 2013


Why have an IP?

• Capacity development • Identify need-based capacity building of actors• Dialogue• Reflection• Cross-learning

• Allows innovation research• Identification of research issues (demand-driven)• Disseminate research outputs• Action research and learning by platform

members• Better communication & decision-making

• Facilitate upward communication – creating spaces for weaker partners to have a voice & ability to negotiate

• Better informed decision-making• Facilitate dialogue and understanding amongst

stakeholders


15

Why have an IP?

• Identify and create shared goals and interests in the value chain actors, opportunities, common problems and bottlenecks, and solutions

• Use understanding of value chain to identify upgrading / scaling options –including technical, organizational, institutional, service delivery and policy innovations

• Define activities and actions and, roles and responsibilities of various actors in implementation of agreed options for value chain improvement

Creates ownership, buy-in and motivation


Why have an IP?

• Allows for enhanced impact • improved market functioning, agricultural productivity etc• Implementation and scale up if interventions are successful.

• Allows for processes for monitoring actions for upgrading / scaling

• Create spaces for long-term learning processes from experiences through iterative action-reflection-learning cycles that support innovation

They are particularly useful in complex systems with multi-stakeholders e.g. agriculture, environmental


What this approach is not..

Not a fixed method, approach or specific process

Has to include changes of personal skills, mindsets and attitudes, organisational practices and culture, and the ways in which organisations interact as part of the wider “innovation system”

An everlasting interaction that needs to be facilitated by researchers = an IP can be dissolved if issues are addressed…

Beware of IP as a “solution looking for a problem”


Producers – poor quality & quantity of goats, few buyers

Buyers – no secure suppliers

Innovation platform

A solution: market construction Producers receive better prices & invest in production. Buyers access good animals.

Example of the establishment of an IP(ILRI & CARE Project Mozambique)

tabelecimento duma PI


How research can contribute to IP’s

Lema, Z. and Schut, M. (2013) Research and innovation platforms. Innovation platforms practice brief 3, November 2013


The research process in innovation platforms

Lema, Z. and Schut, M. (2013) Research and innovation platforms. Innovation platforms practice brief 3, November 2013


Researchers as an Innovation Brokers

1. Researchers are often seen as neutral

2. They be external or internal

3. Researchers often understand the whole picture and interact with all stakeholders

4. Play a number of roles - capacity building, facilitation, carrying risk, seeding ideas, inspiration, active collaboration, building relationships, facilitates learning & exchange & action


Challenges and lessons learnt

• Buy-in & trust for success• Inclusion and representation (women, private sector,

contextual factors – language, illiteracy)

• Incentives for participation (demand for goats, existing networks)

• Dynamic nature of participation

• Power dynamics

• Generating tangible benefits

• Capacity building is key

• Creating experiential learning (CAHW, cross-visits)

• Building skills in management structure & facilitation

• Reflection & discussions

• Building skills with in NGO’s

• Private sector skill development – neglected! –assumed skills were there…


Challenges

• Technical innovation • not ‘new’ but supported by organisational

changes (producer groups, communal grazing areas, health camps) & existing institutions (legislation, fairs)

• Facilitation and management• IP’s are complex and sometimes political

• As a result, they can be costly and time-consuming to implement

• Who should facilitate

• When to start and end an IP

• Who should finance what?

Key message - Short cuts are risky – IP’s are

mechanisms for promoting systems

thinking not only forums for technology

transfer and dissemination


Challenges

M&E can be difficult

•3 aspects to monitor –

•activities,

•process changes (knowledge, attitude and practice),

•impacts on the poor

•Time lags between activities and impact hard to measure (e.g. Capacity building, communication benefit, complexity of stakeholders, complexity of measuring behaviour changes)


Research challenges

• Differing agendas of stakeholders

• Differing ways of working (rigour vs let’s get on with it)

• Differing timeframes

• Dominance by researchers or isolation of researchers

• Getting the research into practice –understandable


imGoats

• Project funded by EC through IFAD

• International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) was the research institution coordinating the project.

• CARE (NGO) implemented in Mozambique building on an existing project funded by CIDA

• Bharatiya Agro Industry Foundation (BAIF) (NGO) implemented in India

• Started January 2011 and ended June 2013 (30 months)

The aim to transform small holder goat production and marketing to a sound and profitableenterprise and model that taps into a growing market.

Key to this were Innovation Platforms


Project locations

Need map of Indian sites


imGOATSTopic Udaipur district, Rajasthan State

– India*

Inhassoro district, Inhambane Province

– Mozambique

Population density 196/km2 11/km2

Participating households 1000 524

Literacy levels 58.62% 51%

Average annual rainfall 600mm 600-800mm

Livelihoods Small land and livestock holdings (subsistence

agriculture); wage labour important source of

income

Small land and livestock holdings (subsistence

agriculture); crop production main occupation;

cattle numbers very low

Main crops Maize, wheat, barley, chickpea, rape and

mustard

Maize, groundnuts, beans, cassava, millet

Average goat herd size 6.2 (range 1-16) 8.4 (range 1-30)

Marketing practices During main festive period (October to December) and

ad hoc throughout the year to meet household

demands

During festive period (December) and ad hoc throughout

the year to meet household demands

Nearest goat market 50Km (Udaipur) 200Km (Massinga)

Main goat value chain

constraints

Lack of improved bucks; limited access to

animal health services; low number of goats

available for sale; limited knowledge about

improved husbandry practices

Low number of goats; limited access to

animal health services; lack of organization

of producers; lack of infrastructure; limited

knowledge about improved husbandry

Practices

Main value chain actors Producers; CAHWs; local traders/butchers;

long distance traders; local pharmacist; Animal

Husbandry Department; BAIF; research (ILRI,

veterinary college)**

Producers; CAHWs; local traders/butchers;

local retailers; District (SDAE) and Provincial

(SPP) Veterinary Services; CARE; research

(ILRI)**


IP Process in India


IP Process in Mozambique


IP Formation

• The IP formation process was inclusive; including producer groups

• Project partners conceptualised vision & objectives, challenges & opportunities;

• Potential tasks identified

• Assessment of knowledge/skills among producers and CAHWs was thoroughly explored

• Roles of some VC actors in the innovation process were insufficiently explored.

• Problem identification was participatory with a focus on production and marketing -> linked to key constraints.

• Project partners lead in facilitation and management; mechanisms were established to hand-over

• Project funded initial resources.


IP Management • Participation varied across the VC actors.

• Information flow from platform to producer groups was good, but weak inversely

• CAHWs formed an important link with producers.

• The IP tapped into the knowledge/skills of some VC actors, especially India;

• Problem solving followed a systematic innovation process (technological, organizational, and institutional elements);

• Some interventions were highly predictable, others not (flexible planning);

• In Mozambique, there was a stronger reflection on the IP as an institutional innovation itself. Key management structure was secretriate.


IP Management

• Capacity building through training and exposure/exchange visits (focus was on producers and CAHWs)

• IP meetings = capacity building through systematic reflection.

• Innovation brokering included multiple diverse tasks;

• Facilitation was gradually handed over to local actors, but project partners continued to play an important role.

• IPs were (human) resource intensive; including:

• extra efforts to get endorsement and support from community leaders and

producer groups, and

• creating strategic linkages with government agencies.


Changing roles of various stakeholders


Type of innovation – Mozambique

TechnologyOrganisational

Institutional


Animal production -technological •improved kraals • improved animal husbandry (drinking water & feed)•animal services delivered by CAHW -> improved animal production techniques (including goat health and reproduction)


Organisational -retailers

Retailer to supply veterinary inputs to CAHW


Communal pasture areasTechnological & Organisational &

Institutional

12 Communal pasture - focusing on 6 functional•Guidelines / training on sustainable management based on local situation (technological)•Legal demarcation of area in process by government (institutional)•Community management (i.e. water, herding, security & fire) & association(organisational)


Organisational and Institutional Commercialisation

Organisational

• Aggregation of animals by CAHW for sale

• Organisation of regular fairs (facilitated by IP)

• Exploration of new markets & determination of market needs (animals >20kg & > 20 goats)

• Linkages to buyers (local and national)

Institutional

• Experience exchange to existing fair (secretariate of IP)

• Introduction of use of weighing scales & live-weight pricing to guarantee fair price (IP decided)


Type of innovation – India

TechnologyOrganisational

Institutional


Technological

• Animal health service delivery by CAHWs

• Alternative feeds and new feeding techniques

• Better breeding practices (e.g. improved male goats available; castrating inferior male goats)


Organisational

• Aggregation of animals by CAHWs for selling

• Organization of goat fairs and exploring new markets

• Organization of health camps for vaccination•

Aggregated animals being sold at Udaipur city (50 km from Jhadol)


Institutional

• IP for actors along the value chain to improve goat production and marketing

• New ways of collaboration between CAHWs and veterinary services for faecal sample testing (linkage with the regional disease diagnostic laboratory)

• Linkages with government agricultural training institute (called KrishiVignan Kendras) – series of trainings on good practices in goat hubs were conducted to benefit the CAHWs


Other key areas of innovation process in both countries

Institutional• Coordination in implementation with

government to ensure sustainability

Organisational

• Group formation and strengthening (elections, accountability, advantages of working in groups) -

Mainstreaming

• Focus on gender and vulnerable households (FHH, PLWHA)

• Environmental assessment


Key areas of research support in imGOATS

• Value chain assessments

• Stakeholder analysis

• IP functioning – reflection and action

• learning

• Gender study

• Animal health data collection

• Outcome mapping


Country specific research

•In Mozambique specifically:•Communal pasture areas (carrying capacity assessment)•Improved shelters •Consumer demand study

•In India specifically:•Testing of faecal samples Identification of specific endo-parasites in the area and prescription of dewormers•Price analysis to understand trader preference at Udaipur market


Last thought

If we always do What we always did,

We will always getWhat we always got!


Resources available

ILRI IP resources - Series of 12 briefs on IP’s https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33667/browse?value=IN

NOVATION+SYSTEMS&type=ilrisubject

KARI/ACIAR IP http://aciar.gov.au/aifsc/sites/default/files/images/innovation_gu

ide.pdf

Wageningen UR critical issues for reflection https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Publication-

details.htm?publicationId=publication-way-343535383133

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33667/browse?value=INNOVATION+SYSTEMS&type=ilrisubject

http://aciar.gov.au/aifsc/sites/default/files/images/innovation_guide.pdf

http://aciar.gov.au/aifsc/sites/default/files/images/innovation_guide.pdf


Papers

Andy Hall (2011). Putting agricultural research into use: Lessons from contested visions of innovation. UNU merit Working paper Series no #2011-076

http://portal.unu.edu/calendar/?go=event.page&id=4244

Kees Swaans et al (2014). Operationalizing inclusive innovation: lessons from innovation platformss in livestock value chains in India and Mozambique

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.925246

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Enhancing_Ag_Innovation.pdf

http://portal.unu.edu/calendar/?go=event.page&id=4244

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.925246

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Enhancing_Ag_Innovation.pdf


Questions & contacts

Insert document title hereSlide 50

Michaela Cosijn, International Development Research Officer Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research OrganisationEmail: [email protected]

Food Systems Innovation initiative website: http://foodsystemsinnovation.org.au/Email contact: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://foodsystemsinnovation.org.au/

mailto:[email protected]