innovation platforms: evaluating functioning, outcomes and contributions to agriculture development...
TRANSCRIPT
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