INNOVATION PLATFORMS Evaluating functioning outcomes and contributions to

INNOVATION PLATFORMS: Evaluating functioning, outcomes and contributions to agriculture development in the Lake Kivu Region Pamela Pali J. 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: SSACP 3. Methods & Tools 4. Results 5. Conclusions 2

BACKGROUND w Research oriented evaluation – Policy w Empowerment evaluation n Evaluation concepts, techniques and findings are institutionalized by program stakeholders through iterations of action, reflection and learning cycle. w Characteristics: n Participative, collaborative, democratic and accommodative to program shifts. 3

The Context of EE w w sub Saharan Africa Challenge program (SSA-CP) Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR 4 D) Innovation Platforms (IP’s) Why? n Is IAR 4 D feasible; cost effective in comparison with other approaches, and consequently, it can be scaled out. w SSA-CP is using IP’s as implementation models - to prove whether IAR 4 D concept is superior in comparison with conventional approaches. 4

Innovation Platforms (IP’s) w IP’s bring together a range of stakeholders, technologies and co-ordination procedures to generate innovative solutions to challenges. w Outcomes = f (establishment, functioning, technology use, mkt access) w M&E of IP’s are a critical component to assessing the IP establishment, functioning, outcomes and extent to which IP’s are practicing IAR 4 D, farmer field processes, and replicability 5

6

Theme: Approach for establishing functional innovation platforms developed Indicator Data Tools Extent to which different actors with a Site, community and household FGD’s, stake in the issue including male and characteristics female farmers are represented and active SA in the platform. Innovation process characteristics Baseline Extent to which IP partners have Knowledge, behavioural, market, questionnaire participated and are aware of the vision productivity, environmental and have clear roles and responsibilities for welfare outcomes Activity reports achieving the vision Indicator Changes 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) Data 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 Tools Stakeholder analysis SNA Activity reports IP attendance registers 7

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 Knowledge sharing channels Types of information, Channels and the media Effectiveness of information source Reach 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 Positive and negative changes Individual changes Organizational changes MSC IP functioning IP outcomes Significant changes among IP actors / and or their organizations as a result of participation in the IP 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

IP’s established in LK PLS Country District Territoire Sub county Secteur Groupment Market Access Uganda Kisoro Chahi Good Uganda Kabale Bufundi Poor Rwanda Burera Rwerere Poor Rwanda Rubavu Mudende Poor Rwanda Musanze Gataraga Good Name of IP Date of initiatio n Chahi ifatanya bu basha 06/11/08 meaning together we can succeed. Bufundi IP 07/11/08 Gerakuntego Rwerere meaning 25/11/08 to achieve the vision Huguka Mudende meaning increase knowledge. Brainstorming and the suggestions. Retained the 26/11/08 name which matched well with the vision. Isangano 27/11/08 DRC Masisi Mupfuni Shanga Good Musanganya ya Mupfuni Shanga meaning to put everybody together or where people are put together. DRC Rutshuru Kisigari Poor Muungano 12/12/08 28/01/09 10

11

Attendance, Number of Farmers IP Establishment IP meeting attendance by Gender 90 80 77 70 60 60 57 50 40 44 41 48 43 42 30 20 57 55 26 17 16 10 16 13 0 Chahi ifatanya bu basha Bufundi Gerakuntego Rwerere Huguka Mudende Isangano Number of IP meetings Average attendance[1] Average # of females Average number of males 12

Establishment of functional IP ’s IP attendance by category Totalaattendancebycategory 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Private sector Chahi ifatanya bu basha Farmers/ groups/ co op reps Bufundi IP Policy Research Gerakuntego Rwerere Extension Faith based Huguka Mudende Security Isangano 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 l IP scoping l prioritization of results of SA methods – Voting by show of hands in Uganda was improved to pair wise ranking Rwanda and DRC l logistical arrangements for meetings – Rwanda/ Uganda l Simple and versatile – used by all stakeholders at different levels 14

Challenges articulated by IP’s Name of IP Challenge articulated by IP’s Chahi 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 la réduction de la pauvreté; la nutrition des enfants et l’amélioration de Shanga 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 15

Name of IP Prioritized Results Prioritized result Chahi ifatanya bu basha Low soil fertility Pest and diseases Bufundi IP Lack of agricultural inputs Insufficient agricultural information and illiteracy Gerakuntego Rwerere Insufficient capital Erosion Huguka Mudende Insufficient knowledge Insufficient credit Isangano Insufficient Capital Insufficient knowledge Musanganya ya Mupfuni Shanga une connaissance insuffisante de techniques Un 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 w OPPORTUNITIES w Facilitate shared vertical and horizontal learning w Cut across geographical, language, boundaries w Simple and versatile w CHALLENGES w Farmers may become data collectors w Distortion of meaning due to various languages used 17

Conclusion w The use of empowerment evaluation tools in M&E, contribute to a richer, more refined impact evaluation in the proof of concept of IAR 4 D 18

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING 19