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]

for impact
Acknowledgements

for impact
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)

for impact
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

for impact
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 of
programs 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

for impact
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 soley
on 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

for impact
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

for impact
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 .

for impact
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.

for impact
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

for impact
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 policy
Intermediate
•Aim to generate action on the ground
•Focus on communities
Local

for impact
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

for impact
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

for impact
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

for impact
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

for impact
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

for impact
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”

for impact
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

for impact
How research can
contribute to IP’s
Lema, Z. and Schut, M. (2013) Research and innovation platforms. Innovation platforms practice brief 3, November 2013

for impact
The research process in
innovation platforms
Lema, Z. and Schut, M. (2013) Research and innovation platforms. Innovation platforms practice brief 3, November 2013

for impact
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

for impact
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…

for impact
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

for impact
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)

for impact
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

for impact
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 profitable
enterprise and model that taps into a growing market.
Key to this were Innovation Platforms

for impact
Project locations
Need map of Indian sites

for impact
imGOATS
Topic 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)**

for impact
IP Process in India

for impact
IP Process in Mozambique

for impact
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.

for impact
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.

for impact
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.

for impact
Changing roles of various
stakeholders

for impact
Type of innovation – Mozambique
Technology
Organisational
Institutional

for impact
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)

for impact
Organisational -
retailers
Retailer to supply veterinary
inputs to CAHW

for impact
Communal pasture areas
Technological & 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)

for impact
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)

for impact
Type of innovation – India
Technology
Organisational
Institutional

for impact
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)

for impact
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)

for impact
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 Krishi
Vignan Kendras) – series of trainings on good practices in goat hubs
were conducted to benefit the CAHWs

for impact
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

for impact
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

for impact
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

for impact
Last thought
If we always do
What we always did,
We will always get
What we always got!

for impact
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

for impact
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

for impact
Questions & contacts
Insert document title hereSlide 50
Michaela Cosijn, International Development Research Officer
Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation
Email: michaela.cosijn@csiro.au
Food Systems Innovation initiative website: http://foodsystemsinnovation.org.au/
Email contact: hello@foodsystemsinnovation.org.au

Innovation Platforms for increasing impact of research in Mozambique & India

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Innovation Platforms for increasing impact of research in Mozambique & India

Semelhante a Innovation Platforms for increasing impact of research in Mozambique & India (20)

Mais de Food_Systems_Innovation

Mais de Food_Systems_Innovation (16)

Último

Último (20)

Innovation Platforms for increasing impact of research in Mozambique & India